Worst Mass Shooting in U.S. History

[ProfMD]

I'm not begrudging him his personal security, I'm rejecting the premise that he can claim to decide mine is unnecessary with any level of integrity

No level of integrity because he has his own security? For reasons cited in the posts above, this argument is not convincing.

Or is it no integrity because you disagree with him? If this is the case, argue the merits (or lack thereof) of his proposals, not his right to make them.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ProfMD]

I guess with the free thought project you get what you pay for.

Of course local gun controls don't work. No border patrols at state or city lines to stop the flow of weapons into and out of these places.

There are good and reasonable arguments to be made against gun control - this is not one of them.

 

[deleted480308]

No level of integrity because he has his own security? For reasons cited in the posts above, this argument is not convincing.

Or is it no integrity because you disagree with him? If this is the case, argue the merits (or lack thereof) of his proposals, not his right to make them.

The guy with the biggest security detail in the world doesn't get to say my semiautomatic rifle is paranoid overkill.

I'm not the one trying to impede on his life situation, he wants to interfere with mine.

 

[ProfMD]

The guy with the biggest security detail in the world doesn't get to say my semiautomatic rifle is paranoid overkill.

I'm not the one trying to impede on his life situation, he wants to interfere with mine.

And this argument holds no weight since his security needs vastly outweigh yours. The reasons are posted above by myself and others.

Again, argue the merits of the proposals, not his right to make them.

Even if he wanted to forgo the security detail, the Secret Service would not let him.

 

[deleted480308]

And this argument holds no weight since his security needs vastly outweigh yours. The reasons are posted above by myself and others.

Again, argue the merits of the proposals, not his right to make them.

Even if he wanted to forgo the security detail, the Secret Service would not let him.

You don't listen

I'm not arguing for parity, I'm arguing for autonomy

Right now he's a 800lb man telling me I can't have cheese on my burger for health reasons...he has no place via the constitution to do so and he has no moral standing due to his security details.

I'm not trying to mess with his situation, he wants to mess with mine

 

[ProfMD]

You don't listen

I'm not arguing for parity, I'm arguing for autonomy

Right now he's a 800lb man telling me I can't have cheese on my burger for health reasons...he has no place via the constitution to do so and he has no moral standing due to his security details.

I'm not trying to mess with his situation, he wants to mess with mine

The bolded statement is a reasonable argument.

The underlined statement is irrelevant to the conversation.

You can argue for your own autonomy, that's fine. But the Secret Service protection afforded to the President does not preclude him from making policy proposals regarding gun control.

See, I do listen. I just disagree with your premise.

 

[pgg]

I said it was pretty common for you to have a nut case go on a killing spree.

And you'd be wrong to say that, although I'll concede that "common" is a very subjective word and I suppose it could mean anything you want it to mean, from one minute to another, depending on your mood, caffeine intake in the last 2 hours, and/or any particular agenda you had at the moment.

What's the risk of dying under anesthesia? A few in a million? I know that you, like all of us, have a special reassuring voice and practiced spiel to reassure your routine low-risk patients that anesthesia risk is very small.

Why are you so anxious and freaked out by the far smaller risk of dying at the hands of some nut case with a rifle? The risk pod quoted from Mother Jones was around 1 in 10 million.

You are wringing your hands about negligible risks. There is no reason for you to be afraid, and there's no way to justify infringement of an enumerated Constitutional right because you're irrationally afraid.

 

[powermd]

The vast majority of gun violence in Chicago is gangbanger on gangbanger, not gangbanger on 'law-abiding citizen who would otherwise own a gun to defend himself if not for it being illegal'. In fact, one could argue that the problem of gun violence in Chicago would be exactly the same without gun control as with. The gangbangers would simply obtain their guns legally!

The CPD says a very small number of people are responsible for the majority of the violence. If you were to incarcerate people for 3 years for illegal possession like NY does, they might actually make a dent in the problem.

 

[GoodmanBrown]

This is gun-control Straw Man #143. Or maybe it's #144. Hard to keep track.

I can't remember how many times someone has said something like "yeah right, your gun is going to stop a tank or an Apache attack helicopter" ... put this one to bed, please. The only gun owners who actually think like that are the Branch Dildonian types that occupy wildlife refuges and hide under tarps. Yes, those guys were *****s.

Even if the argument wasn't an irrelevant strawman, it'd still be wrong. Just look what some guys with rifles and improvised explosive devices have done in Iraq and Afghanistan the last ~decade or so. An awful lot got killed but you can't call them helpless or ineffective.

Anyway, here's the real value of an armed populace when the government steps over the line. The guns aren't for the tanks. They're for the goons and secret police that come at 3 AM to make protesters and dissident leaders disappear. Look no further than Egypt for a recent example. Guns are basically illegal for most Egyptians to own, but some do anyway. When the so-called Arab Spring was in full swing, and Egyptians were demonstrating and occasionally rioting and generally demanding reform, some neighborhoods got more nocturnal attention than others.

I leave it to the reader as an exercise to identify the difference between houses that got visits and houses that didn't.

pgg,

Your argument is that guns will help prevent people from "disappearing" when a hypothetical, tyrannical US government comes to power and wants to silence dissenters, right? Fair enough, I understand your point of view. Meanwhile, here's the actual, real-life statistics on gun violence in the US in 2016. In 2016 so far, there have been 6,177 deaths from guns.

So, you're telling me that you're willing to trade 13,000 lives per year for 100 years, to avoid your hypothetical oppressive government that by your own admission may possibly happen in the next 100 years. I.e., you're willing to trade 1,300,000 lives for the possible future resistance movement of your great-great-great grandchildren. Your other post was right, I don't want to understand that line of thought. It's pure selfish insanity to me.

The incredibly irony here is that a lot of Rs (not you, I know) are going to vote for Trump to protect their gun rights. Trump being the candidate who has called for "Consequences. Big consequences." when US citizens who happen to be Muslim don't cooperate with the authorities. A man who has already made numerous mentions of his desire to silence critical media and has already banned the Washington Post from attending his press events. A man who has shown repeated tendencies toward violence and encouraged it of his supporters. I.e., the guy who seems most likely to usher in this tyrannical US government against which so many gun buyers want to protect themselves.

 

[deleted480308]

pgg,

Your argument is that guns will help prevent people from "disappearing" when a hypothetical, tyrannical US government comes to power and wants to silence dissenters, right? Fair enough, I understand your point of view. Meanwhile, here's the actual, real-life statistics on gun violence in the US in 2016. In 2016 so far, there have been 6,177 deaths from guns.

So, you're telling me that you're willing to trade 13,000 lives per year for 100 years, to avoid your hypothetical oppressive government that by your own admission may possibly happen in the next 100 years. I.e., you're willing to trade 1,300,000 lives for the possible future resistance movement of your great-great-great grandchildren. Your other post was right, I don't want to understand that line of thought. It's pure selfish insanity to me.

The incredibly irony here is that a lot of Rs (not you, I know) are going to vote for Trump to protect their gun rights. Trump being the candidate who has called for "Consequences. Big consequences." when US citizens who happen to be Muslim don't cooperate with the authorities. A man who has already made numerous mentions of his desire to silence critical media and has already banned the Washington Post from attending his press events. A man who has shown repeated tendencies toward violence and encouraged it of his supporters. I.e., the guy who seems most likely to usher in this tyrannical US government against which so many gun buyers want to protect themselves.

I'm not trading my rights for any amount of promised safety

 

[pgg]

Your argument is that guns will help prevent people from "disappearing" when a hypothetical, tyrannical US government comes to power and wants to silence dissenters, right? Fair enough, I understand your point of view. Meanwhile, here's the actual, real-life statistics on gun violence in the US in 2016. In 2016 so far, there have been 6,177 deaths from guns.

So, you're telling me that you're willing to trade 13,000 lives per year for 100 years

Hold up, we've talked about this before many times; you well know that this is just one argument for preserving firearm/weapon rights in general. If you look at the specific post I was replying to, it should be obvious why I wrote about that one reason.

There are many other arguments as well, none of which can be ignored or dismissed. Hunting, recreation, and competition. Simple self defense looms as large as "security of a free state" ... and the individual right to own a firearm (including a handgun) for the purpose of self defense has been upheld by SCOTUS. Armed self defense is as old and fundamental an individual civil right as any other right, predating even religion and speech.


Bottom line, yes, I am willing to accept 13,000 deaths per year in return for preservation of my right to self defense, my right to hunt, to shoot for fun, to compete with firearms, and so I or my kids or their kids will have the basic tools of self defense to perhaps apply against a violent government, may that ugly day never come.

I also accept 32,000+ motor vehicle deaths per year in return for not having to ride the bus.

I also accept 800,000+ cardiovascular disease deaths per year, in return for being able to eat fat, drink sugar, and smoke cigarettes to my heart's (dis)content.

 

[doctalaughs]

Hold up, we've talked about this before many times; you well know that this is just one argument for preserving firearm/weapon rights in general. If you look at the specific post I was replying to, it should be obvious why I wrote about that one reason.

There are many other arguments as well, none of which can be ignored or dismissed. Hunting, recreation, and competition. Simple self defense looms as large as "security of a free state" ... and the individual right to own a firearm (including a handgun) for the purpose of self defense has been upheld by SCOTUS. Armed self defense is as old and fundamental an individual civil right as any other right, predating even religion and speech.


Bottom line, yes, I am willing to accept 13,000 deaths per year in return for preservation of my right to self defense, my right to hunt, to shoot for fun, to compete with firearms, and so I or my kids or their kids will have the basic tools of self defense to perhaps apply against a violent government, may that ugly day never come.

I also accept 32,000+ motor vehicle deaths per year in return for not having to ride the bus.

I also accept 800,000+ cardiovascular disease deaths per year, in return for being able to eat fat, drink sugar, and smoke cigarettes to my heart's (dis)content.

I think your arguments are reasonable (self-defense, competition, hunting, deterrent against an oppressive government).

However many people, unlike you, do not accept the 13,000 deaths a year as an acceptable necessary cost of our freedoms. I personally think there are certain easy restrictions we could place on gun ownership that might curb the number of those deaths without violating the 2nd amendment, which can be interpreted many ways. You obviously disagree which is why I (or any politician) would have to pass laws to enact those restrictions. But it doesn't mean we "don't believe" in the second amendment. My interpretation is no less valid than yours.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[BLADEMDA]

As Gun Grabbing Fever Grips Dems, AR-15 Sales Go BALLISTIC


http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/06/16/gun-grabbing-fever-grips-dems-ar-15-sales-go-ballistic/

 

[deleted451730]

I think your arguments are reasonable (self-defense, competition, hunting, deterrent against an oppressive government).

However many people, unlike you, do not accept the 13,000 deaths a year as an acceptable necessary cost of our freedoms. I personally think there are certain easy restrictions we could place on gun ownership that might curb the number of those deaths without violating the 2nd amendment, which can be interpreted many ways. You obviously disagree which is why I (or any politician) would have to pass laws to enact those restrictions. But it doesn't mean we "don't believe" in the second amendment. My interpretation is no less valid than yours.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

We have laws banning texting and driving, yet 1000s die every year in the US specifically due to cell phone distraction. I don't accept that, but how far are you willing to go to curb that statistic? Have government install signal jamming devices in cars? Have them track your cell phone use linked to the gps and an in-vehicle computer, giving them ability to sever your connections? I mean, come on, we can take this taxi ride to the end of the line on all sorts of topics, and it always ends in coming to the frank realization that only complete security with 0% freedom of will will satiate anti-gunners.

They've also done studies on helmets and seat belts showing they in fact paradoxically increase morbidity because of a false sense of security, increasing recklessness in athletes and drivers, respectively. Unless we insulate ourselves from each other, or unless we turn around and bend over for our supposedly benign government, people will always die because other people are lunatics. People just want to see their government "do something", not "do the right, logical thing (aka enforce the Constitution)."

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[periopdoc]

Meanwhile, here's the actual, real-life statistics on gun violence in the US in 2016. In 2016 so far, there have been 6,177 deaths from guns.

So, you're telling me that you're willing to trade 13,000 lives per year...

Unfortunately, the premise of your argument is invalid. To claim that a lack of gun control laws costs 13,000 lives per year, you would have to make a valid argument that these laws would be effective enough to reduce homicide (including gang murders, police shootings, and defensive gun uses), suicide, and firearms accidents to zero. Even the most strident gun control advocate cannot make that claim.

 

[periopdoc]

Over the last couple of decades, we have seen a widespread, steady relaxation of the restrictions on the right of the individual to buy and carry firearms. Gun sales and ownership have exploded, and the number of individuals carrying on a regular basis has expanded significantly.

Contrary to the gun control advocates' predictions of blood in the streets, homicide rates are at 50-year lows, and homicide and violent crime are in a steady downtrend since peaking in the 80s and 90s.

While correlation does not necessarily equal causation, I think it is very difficult to argue that expanded recognition of gun rights will in any way lead to more violent crime and homicide since the exact opposite has happened.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for suicide rates which climbed to a 30-year-high in 2014. However, the percent of suicides involving firearms declined from 2009-2014.


-pod

 

[deleted480308]

I think your arguments are reasonable (self-defense, competition, hunting, deterrent against an oppressive government).

However many people, unlike you, do not accept the 13,000 deaths a year as an acceptable necessary cost of our freedoms. I personally think there are certain easy restrictions we could place on gun ownership that might curb the number of those deaths without violating the 2nd amendment, which can be interpreted many ways. You obviously disagree which is why I (or any politician) would have to pass laws to enact those restrictions. But it doesn't mean we "don't believe" in the second amendment. My interpretation is no less valid than yours.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

Wrong. You're like someone who says they are all for freedom of speech, unless it's offensive.

You aren't an advocate of the second amendment

 

[deleted59964]

I truly hope you are simply ignorant of the statistics that you are slinging about. We do not have daily spree shootings by nut cases. We had four to six in 2015.


Even Mother Jones is highly critical of the way the media has latched on to, and used, the Shooting Tracker data to stoke a widespread sense of dread among the public.




Only an ignorant or truly depraved and cynical person, would use the bodies of domestic and gangland violence victims to pad their statistics on random spree killings.

-bsd

I think I'll step back on this issue.
It's your country - you all have to live there not me, and I'll continue to enjoy clinical threads.

I'll just say everything is a matter of perspective.
I'm not padding statistics on random spree killings, I just make no such distinction.
Domestic violence and gang violence is also horrific to me.

Despite living in a city of 3 million and, spending 25 years between ED, ICU and now anaesthesia I've seen only a handful of gun shot injuries. A couple of self inflicted shot gun wounds, and the rest with .22 calibre rifles. I like it that way.

 

[WholeLottaGame7]

pgg,

Your argument is that guns will help prevent people from "disappearing" when a hypothetical, tyrannical US government comes to power and wants to silence dissenters, right? Fair enough, I understand your point of view. Meanwhile, here's the actual, real-life statistics on gun violence in the US in 2016. In 2016 so far, there have been 6,177 deaths from guns.

So, you're telling me that you're willing to trade 13,000 lives per year for 100 years, to avoid your hypothetical oppressive government that by your own admission may possibly happen in the next 100 years. I.e., you're willing to trade 1,300,000 lives for the possible future resistance movement of your great-great-great grandchildren. Your other post was right, I don't want to understand that line of thought. It's pure selfish insanity to me.

The incredibly irony here is that a lot of Rs (not you, I know) are going to vote for Trump to protect their gun rights. Trump being the candidate who has called for "Consequences. Big consequences." when US citizens who happen to be Muslim don't cooperate with the authorities. A man who has already made numerous mentions of his desire to silence critical media and has already banned the Washington Post from attending his press events. A man who has shown repeated tendencies toward violence and encouraged it of his supporters. I.e., the guy who seems most likely to usher in this tyrannical US government against which so many gun buyers want to protect themselves.

I was just going to say, at least when Trump cracks down on the rights of Muslims (and anyone else who pisses him off), this way they can defend themselves with AR-15s?

 

[sleepallday]

I was just going to say, at least when Trump cracks down on the rights of Muslims (and anyone else who pisses him off), this way they can defend themselves with AR-15s?

Now thats a sight that would bring about swift gun control!

 

[chfo]

I guess with the free thought project you get what you pay for.

Of course local gun controls don't work. No border patrols at state or city lines to stop the flow of weapons into and out of these places.

There are good and reasonable arguments to be made against gun control - this is not one of them.

And you suppose weapons won't continue pouring in illegally from Mexico?

American citizens won't be able to defend themselves, but Mexican gangs sure will.

 

[periopdoc]

I think I'll step back on this issue.

Probably a good idea since your lack of knowledge and clarity on the issue is becoming more explicit with every post.

I'll just say everything is a matter of perspective.
I'm not padding statistics on random spree killings, I just make no such distinction.

Like everyone else, you are welcome to your own perspective and analysis, but you simply may not make up your own stats.

In an argument about random spree killings, with so-called assault weapons, you claimed that these attacks occur more than once per day. Even the very liberal Mother Jones source disputes that number by a factor of 100 and argues that using the made up definition from Shooting Tracker, that you used, keeps us from being able to gain an understanding of why these shootings occur.

Perhaps you should ask yourself why you feel the need to exaggerate the number of mass shootings to make a point. Could it be that, deep down, you aren't convinced that it is a big enough problem to justify the kind of response you would advocate?

Domestic violence and gang violence is also horrific to me.

And yet not once, until I pointed out that you were using their bodies to inflate the stats on spree killings, did you make mention of, say, the 45 shot and killed this month or the 307 shot and killed this year in Chicago almost exclusively with handguns.

Despite living in a city of 3 million and, spending 25 years between ED, ICU and now anaesthesia I've seen only a handful of gun shot injuries. A couple of self inflicted shot gun wounds, and the rest with .22 calibre rifles. I like it that way.

Bully for you. With the huge population we have, the same could be said of the vast majority of US Anesthesiologists, even the ones who live in large cities.

-bsd

 

[ProfMD]

And you suppose weapons won't continue pouring in illegally from Mexico?

American citizens won't be able to defend themselves, but Mexican gangs sure will.

1) There is at least border protection. But, more importantly, that was not the criticism I levied against your post ...

2) The problem with your post was suggesting that the failure of gun control in Chicago means that control cannot work on a national level. There are logical arguments for why it may not work, but your meme presents a meaningless argument for the reasons I listed.

Now, as I have said many times, I don't have a side in the gun control debate. However, I do prefer to read good, thoughtful arguments, not one-liners that offer nothing to the debate.

 

[chfo]

1) There is at least border protection. But, more importantly, that was not the criticism I levied against your post ...

2) The problem with your post was suggesting that the failure of gun control in Chicago means that control cannot work on a national level. There are logical arguments for why it may not work, but your meme presents a meaningless argument for the reasons I listed.

Now, as I have said many times, I don't have a side in the gun control debate. However, I do prefer to read good, thoughtful arguments, not one-liners that offer nothing to the debate.

The failure of Chicago gun control is precisely why it will fail nationwide.

 

[ProfMD]

The failure of Chicago gun control is precisely why it will fail nationwide.

Actually, it isn't.

The easiest argument to make for failure of gun control in Chicago is that guns easily get in from elsewhere. This is not necessarily the case if there is gun control on a national level.

Could guns if any type still get into the hands of people in the US? Sure. But not as easily as driving from Ohio (or wherever) into Illinois.

If you want to convince people to agree with your position then you need to start using arguments that are not easily refuted.

 

[chfo]

Actually, it isn't.

The easiest argument to make for failure of gun control in Chicago is that guns easily get in from elsewhere. This is not necessarily the case if there is gun control on a national level.

Could guns if any type still get into the hands of people in the US? Sure. But not as easily as driving from Ohio (or wherever) into Illinois.

If you want to convince people to agree with your position then you need to start using arguments that are not easily refuted.

Are you paying attention? If guns are outlawed nationwide, guns will come in from Mexico, more than they are currently.

Illegal drugs are, well, illegal, but guess what, they still pour into our country via Mexico.


It's ironic, really. You don't want to build a wall and secure our borders and minimize the chance of terrorists entering the country, but you are in favor of taking Chicago's gun controls nationwide to infringe the rights of law abiding citizens.

Your priorities are badly misplaced.

You learned nothing from the Paris massacre. Where do you think those terrorists got their guns from, when France has the strictest nationwide gun restrictions?

 

[doctalaughs]

Wrong. You're like someone who says they are all for freedom of speech, unless it's offensive.

You aren't an advocate of the second amendment

Its a great way to argue to simply state anyone opposing your viewpoint is wrong. As far as I know you don't have the sole right on how to interpret the second amendment. I am a gun owner too, and despite what you say I do advocate for the 2nd amendment. If they were trying to repeal it I would be vehemently against it.

You are basically saying anyone who advocates for any sort of regulation of arms in the USA is "wrong." Fine, have your opinion, I'm entitled to mine and I have a feeling there are more on my side than yours.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[ProfMD]

Are you paying attention? If guns are outlawed nationwide, guns will come in from Mexico, more than they are currently.

Illegal drugs are, well, illegal, but guess what, they still pour into our country via Mexico.


It's ironic, really. You don't want to build a wall and secure our borders and minimize the chance of terrorists entering the country, but you are in favor of taking Chicago's gun controls nationwide to infringe the rights of law abiding citizens.

Your priorities are badly misplaced.

You learned nothing from the Paris massacre. Where do you think those terrorists got their guns from, when France has the strictest nationwide gun restrictions?

I never said I was in favor of extending Chicago's gun control policy nationwide. In fact, I have said repeatedly that if you want a legal gun, have at it.

And, I did concede that even if guns were illegal in the entire US, people would still find a way to get them, but would be harder.

I am not in favor of shutting down immigration - no reason to rehash that argument. Also, the wall that has been proposed is impractical even if you look at it just from a financial perspective.

You may be mischaracterizing my position, but at the same time, you are making an actual argument. You are moving beyond the one-liner memes that have never won an argument. Good job.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Are you paying attention? If guns are outlawed nationwide, guns will come in from Mexico, more than they are currently.

Illegal drugs are, well, illegal, but guess what, they still pour into our country via Mexico.


It's ironic, really. You don't want to build a wall and secure our borders and minimize the chance of terrorists entering the country, but you are in favor of taking Chicago's gun controls nationwide to infringe the rights of law abiding citizens.

Your priorities are badly misplaced.

You learned nothing from the Paris massacre. Where do you think those terrorists got their guns from, when France has the strictest nationwide gun restrictions?

You are wasting your time. Liberals believe Guns are bad and should be banned. Moderate Democrats believe most guns should be banned and strict laws for owning a gun like a revolver are necessary to protect the average citizen.

Despite the Founders' insistence on the Second Amendment the Liberals believe the US Constitution is a living document which means the people are free to change the meaning of "well Regulated" anytime they see fit to do so. SCOTUS (after the 9th Judge is seated) will certainly uphold any and all gun bans/restrictions passed by the States or congress.

It's only a matter of time before Guns become more regulated and the AR-15 gets banned. IN fact, the next time the DEMs get control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency I expect the following:

1. Ban on all Assault Weapons
2. Ban on high capacity magazines
3. Medicare for all option on the exchanges
4. Open Borders for Illegals
5. Much higher taxation on those who earn over $250K
6. Social Security Tax increase and increase the income which it applies to
7. Increase in the Medicare Tax
8. Tax on trading stocks

The USA is becoming a Social Democracy. Bernie Sanders won't win this time around but in just 8 years this country will move HEAVILY to the Left.

 

[doctalaughs]

You are wasting your time. Liberals believe Guns are bad and should be banned. Moderate Democrats believe most guns should be banned and strict laws for owning a gun like a revolver are necessary to protect the average citizen.

Despite the Founders' insistence on the Second Amendment the Liberals believe the US Constitution is a living document which means the people are free to change the meaning of "well Regulated" anytime they see fit to do so. SCOTUS (after the 9th Judge is seated) will certainly uphold any and all gun bans/restrictions passed by the States or congress.

It's only a matter of time before Guns become more regulated and the AR-15 gets banned. IN fact, the next time the DEMs get control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency I expect the following:

1. Ban on all Assault Weapons
2. Ban on high capacity magazines
3. Medicare for all option on the exchanges
4. Open Borders for Illegals
5. Much higher taxation on those who earn over $250K
6. Social Security Tax increase and increase the income which it applies to
7. Increase in the Medicare Tax
8. Tax on trading stocks

The USA is becoming a Social Democracy. Bernie Sanders won't win this time around but in just 8 years this country will move HEAVILY to the Left.

What is your originalist interpretation of "well-regulated." And by the way I consider myself a moderate republican and I'm against #3-8, own a handgun myself but that doesn't mean I cant agree with some restrictions on firearms (not necessarily 1 and 2 exactly though)


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[ProfMD]

You are wasting your time. Liberals believe Guns are bad and should be banned. Moderate Democrats believe most guns should be banned and strict laws for owning a gun like a revolver are necessary to protect the average citizen.

Despite the Founders' insistence on the Second Amendment the Liberals believe the US Constitution is a living document which means the people are free to change the meaning of "well Regulated" anytime they see fit to do so. SCOTUS (after the 9th Judge is seated) will certainly uphold any and all gun bans/restrictions passed by the States or congress.

It's only a matter of time before Guns become more regulated and the AR-15 gets banned. IN fact, the next time the DEMs get control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency I expect the following:

1. Ban on all Assault Weapons
2. Ban on high capacity magazines
3. Medicare for all option on the exchanges
4. Open Borders for Illegals
5. Much higher taxation on those who earn over $250K
6. Social Security Tax increase and increase the income which it applies to
7. Increase in the Medicare Tax
8. Tax on trading stocks

The USA is becoming a Social Democracy. Bernie Sanders won't win this time around but in just 8 years this country will move HEAVILY to the Left.

You speak like all liberals are the same. Saying all liberals think guns should be banned is like me saying all conservatives think being gay should be a crime. It's a ridiculous statement.

However, since you think you have my political philosophy down, let me point out where you are wrong. And, I am not going to discuss these further on this thread.

1) I do not think all guns should be banned. I do think there should be intelligent conversations about gun control. However, this is clearly too much to ask since liberals by and large don't understand firearms and conservatives just refuse to discuss anything related to gun control. Neither side has perfect insight regarding the initial intent of the second amendment. There are historical documents and case law to support both sides. However, liberals need to look beyond MSNBC/Salon/Mother Jones and conservatives need to look beyond Fox News/Breitbart/Rush Limbaugh.

2) I think healthcare reform needs to continue. I think there should be a public option for people to buy in to (liberal ideal) but I also feel that something needs to be done regarding tort reform (conservative ideal).

3) I don't think there should be open borders for all illegals. I do think there should be (and there is already) a vetting process. However, I also think that wholesale closure of our borders to immigration is un-American. I do think that there should be a path to citizenship for people brought here as children who have no criminal records ("the dreamers").

4) I would be willing to pay a modestly higher tax rate. What really needs to happen is a reduction in spending. This includes entitlement reform, military spending, etc.

5) I do not support increasing the tax on capital gains. However, I do support tax reform and overall simplification of the tax code. Carried interest is not really the same as capital gains.

6) I think there needs to be real campaign finance reform.

I come from a family that has voted Republican for generations. However, they are tending to vote more Democrat now. The reasons are not fiscal policy or gun control, it's the social policy. I happen to agree with the need to tighten spending and limit tax hikes. I agree that we need a strong military. However, I also think we need health care reform. I think that voting repeatedly to repeal Obamacare is a waste of government time that could be used solving actual problems. I think that the Senate needs to hold hearings on the Supreme Court nomination - they don't need to confirm, but they need to do their job. I think that gay people should be allowed to marry. I think most of the voter ID laws and other limitations on voting are a thinly veiled attempt to suppress the vote of poor predominantly African-American citizens.

Most of all, I think we need to stop demonizing people we disagree with an be willing to have intelligent discussions of the issues, rather than relying on sound bites and ad hominem attacks.

 

[chfo]

What is your originalist interpretation of "well-regulated."

A hell of a lot of well-trained regulars.

 

[WheezyBaby]

You speak like all liberals are the same. Saying all liberals think guns should be banned is like me saying all conservatives think being gay should be a crime. It's a ridiculous statement.

However, since you think you have my political philosophy down, let me point out where you are wrong. And, I am not going to discuss these further on this thread.

1) I do not think all guns should be banned. I do think there should be intelligent conversations about gun control. However, this is clearly too much to ask since liberals by and large don't understand firearms and conservatives just refuse to discuss anything related to gun control. Neither side has perfect insight regarding the initial intent of the second amendment. There are historical documents and case law to support both sides. However, liberals need to look beyond MSNBC/Salon/Mother Jones and conservatives need to look beyond Fox News/Breitbart/Rush Limbaugh.

2) I think healthcare reform needs to continue. I think there should be a public option for people to buy in to (liberal ideal) but I also feel that something needs to be done regarding tort reform (conservative ideal).

3) I don't think there should be open borders for all illegals. I do think there should be (and there is already) a vetting process. However, I also think that wholesale closure of our borders to immigration is un-American. I do think that there should be a path to citizenship for people brought here as children who have no criminal records ("the dreamers").

4) I would be willing to pay a modestly higher tax rate. What really needs to happen is a reduction in spending. This includes entitlement reform, military spending, etc.

5) I do not support increasing the tax on capital gains. However, I do support tax reform and overall simplification of the tax code. Carried interest is not really the same as capital gains.

6) I think there needs to be real campaign finance reform.

I come from a family that has voted Republican for generations. However, they are tending to vote more Democrat now. The reasons are not fiscal policy or gun control, it's the social policy. I happen to agree with the need to tighten spending and limit tax hikes. I agree that we need a strong military. However, I also think we need health care reform. I think that voting repeatedly to repeal Obamacare is a waste of government time that could be used solving actual problems. I think that the Senate needs to hold hearings on the Supreme Court nomination - they don't need to confirm, but they need to do their job. I think that gay people should be allowed to marry. I think most of the voter ID laws and other limitations on voting are a thinly veiled attempt to suppress the vote of poor predominantly African-American citizens.

Most of all, I think we need to stop demonizing people we disagree with an be willing to have intelligent discussions of the issues, rather than relying on sound bites and ad hominem attacks.

Honestly I think you and I agree on most things. I'm fundamentally distrustful of centralization of power, but I also believe federal government can accomplish things I'm a strong proponent of that I don't believe can be accomplished as effectively on a smaller scale (like a variety of programs to achieve some degree of equality of opportunity for youth, universal healthcare, global stabilization, etc). But I also believe the centralization of the power to achieve these things needs to be tempered by the armament of the populace (and I absolutely do believe a well armed populace is a safe guard against tyranny, though this isn't my only justification for the second amendment), and I'm in favor of universal compulsory military service to both expand our ability to achieve global stabilization and to increase the interest of the populace in our affairs abroad. I guess I'm an odd duck though, and my views are still evolving regardless

 

[deleted59964]

1... Probably a good idea since your lack of knowledge and clarity on the issue is becoming more explicit with every post.


2... Like everyone else, you are welcome to your own perspective and analysis, but you simply may not make up your own stats. In an argument about random spree killings, with so-called assault weapons,

3.. you claimed that these attacks occur more than once per day. Even the very liberal Mother Jones source disputes that number by a factor of 100 and argues that using the made up definition from Shooting Tracker, that you used, keeps us from being able to gain an understanding of why these shootings occur.

4... Perhaps you should ask yourself why you feel the need to exaggerate the number of mass shootings to make a point. Could it be that, deep down, you aren't convinced that it is a big enough problem to justify the kind of response you would advocate?



And yet

5... not once, until I pointed out that you were using their bodies to inflate the stats on spree killings, did you make mention of, say, the 45 shot and killed this month or the 307 shot and killed this year in Chicago almost exclusively with handguns.



Bully for you. With the huge population we have, the same could be said of the vast majority of US Anesthesiologists, even the ones who live in large cities.

-bsd

I'll address your points since you've quoted me.

1... I doubt there is anything I can say to change your mind about that.

2... I've never said my arguments are limited to random spree killings, nor limited to assault rifles. That might be what you want to discuss - but to me gun violence is gun violence. Blade posted a gun safe for hand guns, i didn't argue it was off topic.

3... yes data I quoted comes from shooting tracker. By their definition 2015 saw more than one mass shooting per day.
the definition they use for a mass shooting is " Mass Shooting = FOUR or more shot and/or killed in a single event [incident], at the same general time and location not including the shooter". I'd argue that's a very conservative definition - isn't three people (excluding the perpetrator) dead enough for a mass shooting ?

4... I assure you, I think the USA has a massive problem with gun violence. sadly many americans don't -- and so nothing will change.

5... You're right I didn't mention that -- because I live 20,000 km away and didn't know how bad things are there.
thanks for supporting my argument -- that is truly horrific.

6... I'll have to take your word on that, I'm genuinely surprised to hear that most anesthesiologists with 25 years experience working in critical care areas have seen only a handful of gun shot wounds.

well - that's it.

 

[deleted480308]

Its a great way to argue to simply state anyone opposing your viewpoint is wrong. As far as I know you don't have the sole right on how to interpret the second amendment. I am a gun owner too, and despite what you say I do advocate for the 2nd amendment. If they were trying to repeal it I would be vehemently against it.

You are basically saying anyone who advocates for any sort of regulation of arms in the USA is "wrong." Fine, have your opinion, I'm entitled to mine and I have a feeling there are more on my side than yours.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

Your side includes those that want to repeal, don't pat yourself on the back too harf

 

[deleted480308]

I was just going to say, at least when Trump cracks down on the rights of Muslims (and anyone else who pisses him off), this way they can defend themselves with AR-15s?

absolutely

 

[Random Anesthesiologist]

I'll address your points since you've quoted me.

1... I doubt there is anything I can say to change your mind about that.

2... I've never said my arguments are limited to random spree killings, nor limited to assault rifles. That might be what you want to discuss - but to me gun violence is gun violence. Blade posted a gun safe for hand guns, i didn't argue it was off topic.

3... yes data I quoted comes from shooting tracker. By their definition 2015 saw more than one mass shooting per day.
the definition they use for a mass shooting is " Mass Shooting = FOUR or more shot and/or killed in a single event [incident], at the same general time and location not including the shooter". I'd argue that's a very conservative definition - isn't three people (excluding the perpetrator) dead enough for a mass shooting ?

4... I assure you, I think the USA has a massive problem with gun violence. sadly many americans don't -- and so nothing will change.

5... You're right I didn't mention that -- because I live 20,000 km away and didn't know how bad things are there.
thanks for supporting my argument -- that is truly horrific.

6... I'll have to take your word on that, I'm genuinely surprised to hear that most anesthesiologists with 25 years experience working in critical care areas have seen only a handful of gun shot wounds.

well - that's it.

Do you have voting rights in this country?

 

[Pooh & Annie]

In 2014 there were over 32,000 deaths in car crashes. If we reduced the speed limit to 25mph nationwide, that number would drop quite a bit. The right to drive 55 isn't even in the Constitution, so let's get to work on that

Terrible idea. Most car deaths aren't on freeways.
And yes I get the point you're TRYING to make.
We make all kinds of efforts continuously to Reduce car deaths. That's a good thing.

 

[pgg]

Terrible idea. Most car deaths aren't on freeways.

Most firearm deaths aren't from rifles, but that's where all the gun control effort is. How odd.

I wonder if that might be because the "assault rifle" ban effort is driven by emotion and gut feeling, rather than actual data or even a superficial understanding of the problem they think they're trying to solve.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

I think I'll step back on this issue.
It's your country - you all have to live there not me, and I'll continue to enjoy clinical threads.

I'll just say everything is a matter of perspective.
I'm not padding statistics on random spree killings, I just make no such distinction.
Domestic violence and gang violence is also horrific to me.

Despite living in a city of 3 million and, spending 25 years between ED, ICU and now anaesthesia I've seen only a handful of gun shot injuries. A couple of self inflicted shot gun wounds, and the rest with .22 calibre rifles. I like it that way.

I don't blame you.

Know that most Americans also think our gun culture is embarrassing and deadly.

I'm a little torn, because I want to see action taken at many levels, obviously including the availability of guns to absolutely anyone who wants one. Including kids, in many households.

But our system is much bigger than the people that live under it, in a good way. People are nuts, and nutty people often want to overstep their bounds. But systems in some ways can make it hard to manifest that nuttiness. Whether I agree with someone or they agree with me, it is exceedingly difficult to impose our will on one another if it means imposing on their rights. Sometimes that does put us at risk, but it means the system supports our individuality above all.

Because of bad individuals and money infecting the system, those rights aren't distributed completely equally in practice. In terms of race and religion, I think we were doing better until recently. And don't get me started on how we treat people in "lesser" countries. But that's another topic.

Anyway, I want less gun deaths out there, however it's accomplished. But it's a GOOD thing that I can't stomp my foot and impose my will on anyone. And sure as f@$& nobody's gonna impose there will on me without a battle. And I'll have the system in my side. I think.

That all being said, looking into ways to reduce gun deaths is not imposing on anyone's rights.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

Most firearm deaths aren't from rifles, but that's where all the gun control effort is. How odd.

I wonder if that might be because the "assault rifle" ban effort is driven by emotion and gut feeling, rather than actual data or even a superficial understanding of the problem they think they're trying to solve.

It definitely is at least partially a "gut" feeling that weapons designed for the military should not be in the hands of untrained citizens. My gut tells me that's ridiculous.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

It definitely is at least partially a "gut" feeling that weapons designed for the military should not be in the hands of untrained citizens. My gut tells me that's ridiculous.

This reflects my thoughts as well. One situation is too much in my opinion but I guess we will choose to live in a society at risk, I just hope I'm not placing blind trust in itchy trigger fingers out there.

 

[pgg]

It definitely is at least partially a "gut" feeling that weapons designed for the military should not be in the hands of untrained citizens. My gut tells me that's ridiculous.

Maybe you need some Pepto-Bismol to soothe your gut while your eyes reread the 2nd Amendment and digest the fact that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms was for the purpose of fighting.

Indeed, hunting isn't protected by the Constitution ... the 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about self defense (though SCOTUS interpreted it that way) ... just the security of a free state. Combat arms are arguably the only ones protected by the 2A.


You threw in another word there too ... "untrained"

How much training do you think a person needs to safely handle an AR15? Have you ever fired one?

Perhaps you're unaware that the reason it has become the most commonly owned rifle in the United States is because that pistol grip and collapsible (adjustable) stock makes it extremely ergonomic, and the low recoil, accurate .223 cartridge makes it easy to shoot and control. It's a rare total novice who can't be comfortably and safely shooting little holes in a target within 10 minutes.

A cheap scoped .308 deer rifle (that of course we can trust you to never ever want to ban) has a steeper learning curve, has much more recoil, and fires a much more powerful round. If you're really worried about training, it's the deer hunters you should be going after.

If you're interested in facts more than gut feeling, of course.

 

[vector2]

I support tougher credentialing as far as background checks and perhaps more stringent required courses, but I think the discussion over the type of gun is *****ic. If I want to buy a folding stock, red dot sight, and bumpfire a 30 round magazine at the range with my SAR1, I should be able to do so to my heart's content because I have a clean background check and because I can be entrusted to have some baseline measure of safety. I bought a SAR1 (and a bushmaster m4 and ruger 10/22) when I was 19-20 years old and had essentially no experience with guns. I relied upon a support system of friends who were experienced with firearms and who had enough knowledge of gun safety to instruct me. It also didn't hurt that I didn't have any mental health issues and wasn't stupid enough to be one of those ***** that gets hammered drunk and just starts spraying in their huge rural backyards even when they're unclear about backstops and the neighbors' proximity.

The point is, the type of gun doesn't matter that much and singling out "assault weapons" over this and that is silly. When I reminisce though, I find it a little scary what 20yo me would've had access to if I had been unstable or a helluva lot more irresponsible.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

How much training do you think a person needs to safely handle an AR15? Have you ever fired one?

Perhaps you're unaware that the reason it has become the most commonly owned rifle in the United States is because that pistol grip and collapsible (adjustable) stock makes it extremely ergonomic, and the low recoil, accurate .223 cartridge makes it easy to shoot and control. It's a rare total novice who can't be comfortably and safely shooting little holes in a target within 10 minutes.

Not that I brought up the AR15, but it's good to know how benign it is! On second thought I guess it IS silly to ask that people show they know how to use and store their military weapons.

That and that pepto helped quite a bit, thanks!

 

[WheezyBaby]

I support tougher credentialing as far as background checks and perhaps more stringent required courses, but I think the discussion over the type of gun is *****ic. If I want to buy a folding stock, red dot sight, and bumpfire a 30 round magazine at the range with my SAR1, I should be able to do so to my heart's content because I have a clean background check and because I can be entrusted to have some baseline measure of safety. I bought a SAR1 (and a bushmaster m4 and ruger 10/22) when I was 19-20 years old and had essentially no experience with guns. I relied upon a support system of friends who were experienced with firearms and who had enough knowledge of gun safety to instruct me. It also didn't hurt that I didn't have any mental health issues and wasn't stupid enough to be one of those ***** that gets hammered drunk and just starts spraying in their huge rural backyards even when they're unclear about backstops and the neighbors' proximity.

The point is, the type of gun doesn't matter that much and singling out "assault weapons" over this and that is silly. When I reminisce though, I find it a little scary what 20yo me would've had access to if I had been unstable or a helluva lot more irresponsible.

The only issue with universal background checks is enforceability without creation of a registry. I'm fine with required training prior to ownership, but that training mustn't be overly burdensome in time, expense, or intelligence requirement - I'm not in favor of "Jim crowing" poor or undereducated individuals. Mental health issues are trickier. My home state is very pro-2A but has mental health questions as part of a background check. If you've ever been treated for any psychopathology, a physician must attest to your suitability to carry a firearm, and the liability game there is not exactly desirable for physicians

 

[powermd]

Looks like you can kill a lot of people very quickly with this weapon.

So where do you draw the line, if any?

Full auto fire?
A mini-gun?
RPGs?
A fully loaded AC130 gunship circling around over your local gun club?
Tactical nuclear weapons?

If the whole point of the second amendment is to put arms in the hands of the citizens to secure a free state, shouldn't we have access to the same firepower the government does?

Maybe you need some Pepto-Bismol to soothe your gut while your eyes reread the 2nd Amendment and digest the fact that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms was for the purpose of fighting.

Indeed, hunting isn't protected by the Constitution ... the 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about self defense (though SCOTUS interpreted it that way) ... just the security of a free state. Combat arms are arguably the only ones protected by the 2A.

 

[pgg]

On second thought I guess it IS silly to ask that people show they know how to use and store their military weapons.

If only that was all you wanted, we'd have nothing to disagree about.

But unfortunately, it's not all you want.