Celebrating The 2nd Amendment One Fine Firearm At A Time

[pgg]

concealed carry doesn't intimidate anyone.

Fair point. I agree.

While I’m advocating for the devil - polite and courteous political campaigning isn’t intimidating, either. Still, politeness and courtesy was apparently in short enough supply that prohibiting politics speech near voting booths was deemed necessary. We know voter intimidation has been a real thing, especially in the south, where muscles were flexed, weapons flashed, lists were made, and people lynched.

Guaranteeing free and safe access to the polls is maybe the highest priority of anything the government can do, as it’s the very foundation of our democracy. It’s a small limit, for a specific purpose, implemented in a narrow way, by minimally restrictive means, with an alternative way to vote available to everyone. I think even the Scalia-Thomas duo would’ve given it their blessing.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Twiggidy]

Fair point. I agree.

While I’m advocating for the devil - polite and courteous political campaigning isn’t intimidating, either. Still, politeness and courtesy was apparently in short enough supply that prohibiting politics speech near voting booths was deemed necessary. We know voter intimidation has been a real thing, especially in the south, where muscles were flexed, weapons flashed, lists were made, and people lynched.

Guaranteeing free and safe access to the polls is maybe the highest priority of anything the government can do, as it’s the very foundation of our democracy. It’s a small limit, for a specific purpose, implemented in a narrow way, by minimally restrictive means, with an alternative way to vote available to everyone. I think even the Scalia-Thomas duo would’ve given it their blessing.

Exactly this....

 

[nimbus]

The reason to have registration is to avoid misrepresentation, no one should be allowed to cast a vote in my name. I have to show I'm me when I cast the vote. Carrying isn't a limited resource in the same way, someone else carrying doesn't stop me from carrying.

So what’s wrong with implementing registration so fewer angry males don’t get guns?

 

[nimbus]

Another emotional non-sequitor and incorrect statement. You can argue better than this.

Even licensed carry of firearms is prohibited in certain sensitive areas. Mostly federal property (we can argue whether that’s justified or not elsewhere) ... but also places where the presence of a firearm is unacceptable for other reasons.

Sterile areas of airports.
Courthouses.
VOTING BOOTHS.

Free speech is limited around polls. No campaign signs within 50 or 100 feet (I don’t recall if this is state or federal law?) and no campaigning, either. The purpose is to prevent voter intimidation at the polls. This is a perfectly Constitutional and appropriate regulation of free speech, in a limited area, for a limited time, for a specific compelling government interest.

For the same reason, carry of firearms is generally prohibited around polling booths. Some places, even the police are prohibited from approaching within 100 feet of a polling booth unless they are going to vote.


I wonder though, can you reconcile the Democratic resistance to voter ID laws with Democratic enthusiasm for requiring people to get permits to own guns?

If getting an ID in order to vote every couple years is an excessive burden to place on one civil right, surely getting a permit to exercise a different civil right is just as excessive and inappropriate a burden.

If you want to take emotion out of it, why don’t you look at yourself? The irrational defense of gun rights is largely rooted in some emotional tribal and distinctly American love affair with guns. If we were rational we’d have tight gun control laws and enjoy the same low rates of gun violence as other advanced nations. But we don’t.

Gun owners and gun rights advocates are some of the most emotional and passionate people I know. Stop projecting and pretending you’re guided by reason.

 

[doctalaughs]

If we really want to reduce these mass shootings we should just go ahead and admit to ourselves we need to repeal the 2nd amendment and round up the guns. Otherwise, we just have to admit we are willing to sacrifice XYZ number of innocent men, women and children as a “cost” of this “right. “ Simple enough. I can understand this argument / principle, even if I dont agree with it.

Most other arguments from the gun-rights side are pretty weak though if you take a scientific viewpoint - study after study shows that the number of gun deaths (and mass shootings) are directly related to the number of guns in citizens’ hands, and the ease of obtaining them, and more “good guys” with guns doesnt result in fewer deaths.

The right to bear arms is pretty unique to this country. My opinion - I’m not too worried that democracy in Britain, Australia and Canada is going to collapse and they have much stricter controls where gun ownership is a privelege, not a right. In fact, I’m much more worried about the erosion of democracy in the US than any of the countries above.

 

[Onefellswoop87]

@pgg - I think that by comparing the 2nd admendment to the 1st, you are inadvertently making the case that registration is not unreasonable.

Religious entities (though not necessarily people) register with the government for tax purposes or building codes, but in the last 15 years or so when the court of public opinion has been harsh of Muslims, no one has used that registration to limit their rights. If your counter argument to this is that specific locations of mosques have been limited (WTC towers site), a new location was found and no one came after the members or limited the religious right.

Municipalities require at least the point of contact to register before securing a space for assembly. And on top of that, many times a list of signatures are required for justification of space allotted. Now the list of signatures doesn’t correspond to the attendees, but it could be used as a pseudo registration of those who believe in the purpose of the assembly. No thought police has rounded them up yet.

Journalists have press credentials, especially when at government sponsored events. I don’t know if there is a journalist database but I’d argue that wearing a required badge at every event, again especially at government events, is akin to registration. No one has rounded up the journalist yet.

And on to a different number of the Bill of Rights - courts have agreed that you have a right to counsel. Now that lawyers pass the Bar and register with a state to practice there, I can’t recall any time where the lawyers have been rounded up.

There already are fractured registration lists of gun owners. Want to hunt? Get a license. What’s a license set up by the state? Registration. I’m not a hunter but I don’t recall anytime where the state has come after hunters using such a list.

Just because you have the right in the Bill of Rifhts doesn’t mean it’s limitless. We put limits on every other right. And I know you’ve talked about limits in terms of size and scope of legal weapons but I don’t think comparing to other rights shows registration isn’t as such a slippery slope as you might believe.

In fact I personally think it’s illogical we don’t register guns. You mean that if I walk out of my front door and see a handgun there, I’m gonna call the police and they’ll say “thanks for letting us know but we have no effing clue who this belongs to.” That to me is incredible. Guns have serial numbers. It’s illegal to destroy that serial number. But we don’t really do anything with that number.

And your other point that, though we don’t have a constitutional right to own a car, we register them to drive them on public lands. I want to build my own vehicle and drive it around my own land - fine, no registration. But as soon as I realize I need a mechanic to help, I gotta start the registration process to drive it legally off my driveway. But you’ve argued that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to have a dangerous populace. A dangerous populace isn’t dangerous if the gun is kept in my locked safe. As soon as it comes off my private property, i believe it should be registered.

 

[Onefellswoop87]

I know a lot of these points have been discussed but to broadly classify the two political extremes, after a tragedy on the 24 hour news coverage:
Democrats scream “don’t just stand there, do something.” Background checks and most recently streamlining the system so a person who isn’t supposed to hang guns doesn’t get guns, banning bump stocks, increasing access to mental health care, etc. And that’s admittedly asking too much with regards to gun control on the national stage. But that’s also kind of how you negotiate. Ask for one extreme and then ideally compromise and meet somewhere so both sides leave the table unhappy.
And Republicans give “prayers and condolences” and tell us about how guns don’t kill people but lone wolves or scary looking dudes do, and it’s a mental health problem, and it’s an immigration problem. If it’s a mental health issue, then don’t roll back executive order that limited guns to that population and instead lets increase access to care. It’s said to be an immigration issue because the perpetrators have brown skin, except when it isn’t and those people have been in the country for years. Psychiatry can’t accurately predict when someone is a danger to themselves or others outside of the immediate future (I recall that involuntary holds are generally for 3 day intervals), so how do we expect to predict that someone might pass background checks and become violent years down the road? We can’t.

It’s gotta be something in between both extremes. It actually is a mental health issue. One-half to two-thirds of all gun deaths are suicides. But at the same time access to guns and making sure those who shouldn’t legally have guns, don’t have them might help with the other half to one-third.

 

[deleted480308]

So what’s wrong with implementing registration so fewer angry males don’t get guns?

there is nothing about being male or angry that should preclude someone from having a gun

There is nothing about an innocent gun owner that makes them registering a reasonable request, it's none of your business what they own

 

[nimbus]

[deleted by moderator]

Welcome back! I’ve missed you. Hugs!!!

 

[Southpaw]

[deleted by moderator]

Precedexed Out,

Cars are registered, cause deaths, and I haven’t read anything about them being confiscated.

 

[Southpaw]

[deleted by moderator]

There’s a reasonable defense to my position. You should give it a shot on your way out.

 

[Southpaw]

[deleted by moderator]

That’s not close to my position You should stop the name calling and mischaracterization. You can do better than this, I know you can! Try it!

 

[nimbus]

[deleted by moderator]

Huh? That’s your reply to my warm welcome?

No comprende senor.

 

[vector2]

Welcome back! I’ve missed you. Hugs!!!

 

[dhb]

The right to bear arms is pretty unique to this country. My opinion - I’m not too worried that democracy in Britain, Australia and Canada is going to collapse and they have much stricter controls where gun ownership is a privelege, not a right.

I would certainly not put that out of the realm of possibility.
You don't need a million people to stage a coup or revolution but it's much hardee if you are facing a million people.
It's only been 70 years since we've had peace and Western Europe and people believe it will last forever.
And that's not counting the Balkan war where you would agree that the people massacred might have liked having a gun.

 

[deleted59964]

there is nothing about being male or angry that should preclude someone from having a gun

There is nothing about an innocent gun owner that makes them registering a reasonable request, it's none of your business what they own

until they start shooting at people with it ... which they do. then it's definitely the people's business.
they're innocent, and then they're not.

 

[pgg]

until they start shooting at people with it ... which they do. then it's definitely the people's business.
they're innocent, and then they're not.

How does registration improve public safety?

What is the compelling government interest? How is registration the narrowest, most limited means to achieve that interest.

I suppose one could argue that registration might help law enforcement investigations after the fact, in cases where a gun is recovered but the shooter is unknown. But “facilitate investigative powers of the state” isn’t a good reason to accept risk to a civil right.

What is the purpose of firearm registration, if not to facilitate eventual confiscation?

 

[GA8314]

We live in a large, diverse, country. But, we are not the most armed per capita. Last I checked that was Switzerland because of universal conscriptions/service and every man is allowed to take home his rifle afterwards.

Naturally, a country our size will have more incidents of gun violence. The US has great benefits but many problems. I don't think guns can be blamed for many of our societal challenges.

 

[deleted480308]

until they start shooting at people with it ... which they do. then it's definitely the people's business.
they're innocent, and then they're not.

so we must register anything that could possibly someday maybe be used for evil?

Do you see how stupid that is? Register all heavy or sharp objects? Register rope. Register fists. Etc

 

[deleted59964]

so we must register anything that could possibly someday maybe be used for evil?

Do you see how stupid that is? Register all heavy or sharp objects? Register rope. Register fists. Etc

i am literally laughing my arse off at how ridiculous your argument is. register rope???? wtf man. you like guns and don’t want any restrictions on them. that’s really your only sensible argument.

really - register rope

no i suggest you register weapons like the ones used by this

2017 Las Vegas shooting - Wikipedia

****ing arsehole who murdered dozens of people at a concert ... or had you already moved on from that? oh that’s right there’s been another one killing dozens at a church in texas ...

 

[deleted480308]

i am literally laughing my arse off at how ridiculous your argument is. register rope???? wtf man. you like guns and don’t want any restrictions on them. that’s really your only sensible argument.

really - register rope

no i suggest you register weapons like the ones used by this

2017 Las Vegas shooting - Wikipedia

****ing arsehole who murdered dozens of people at a concert ... or had you already moved on from that? oh that’s right there’s been another one killing dozens at a church in texas ...

I'm telling you that I know at least 20 people with similar weapons, none of what they own is any of your business and unless you are trying to hurt them you aren't in any danger from those them

 

[deleted59964]

i think the families and friends of those killed would disagree

 

[nimbus]

We live in a large, diverse, country. But, we are not the most armed per capita. Last I checked that was Switzerland because of universal conscriptions/service and every man is allowed to take home his rifle afterwards.

Naturally, a country our size will have more incidents of gun violence. The US has great benefits but many problems. I don't think guns can be blamed for many of our societal challenges.

We are actually #1. We have 4% of the world’s population and 42% of the guns. Japan has 1/3 of the population of the US but in 2013 they had 13 gun deaths vs our 33,000. Who knows how many maimings there were.

What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings? International Comparisons Suggest an Answer

 

[deleted480308]

i think the families and friends of those killed would disagree

then they would be wrong

 

[deleted59964]

wow you are a giant among men

 

[GA8314]

View attachment 225251

We are actually #1. We have 4% of the world’s population and 42% of the guns. Japan has 1/3 of the population of the US but in 2013 they had 13 gun deaths vs our 33,000. Who knows how many maimings there were.

What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings? International Comparisons Suggest an Answer

I call BS on this...

Racial diversity or other factors associated with social cohesion also show little correlation with gun deaths. Among European countries, there is little association between immigration or other diversity metrics and the rates of gun murders or mass shootings.

We've all seen the type of looting and chaos following many recent US disasters. The way the Japanese handled the Fukushima disaster was equal or greater in magnitude of destruction, yet hardly any looting, and hardly any crime. We saw the Japanese working together, in single file lines with organization. The contrast wasn't lost on most observers.

So, maybe the type of diversity is what matters? Also, Europe, for now, is nowhere near as diverse as the US.

Is it all a "diversity" issue? I don't think so. But ignoring the detriments of such a multicultural society, in which social scientists have identified less social cohesion, trust, willingness to invest when "beneficiaries" are deemed very different from one another, is likely a driver. Of course the NYT is going to take a different narrative. That's what their audience wants to read.

We've been a "gun country" for our entire history. We were 90% white in our country in 1950. Did we see similar levels of violence?

 

[deleted59964]

How does registration improve public safety?

What is the compelling government interest? How is registration the narrowest, most limited means to achieve that interest.

I suppose one could argue that registration might help law enforcement investigations after the fact, in cases where a gun is recovered but the shooter is unknown. But “facilitate investigative powers of the state” isn’t a good reason to accept risk to a civil right.

What is the purpose of firearm registration, if not to facilitate eventual confiscation?

hinders black market sales to people who should not be able to get a firearm

 

[pgg]

hinders black market sales to people who should not be able to get a firearm

This is another falsehood perpetuated by the gun control lobby. It is simply, provably untrue.

A number of states have registration laws, which don’t hinder black market sales at all. As a rule, stolen guns or straw purchased guns aren’t transferred to the felon in a way that updates the registry. Serial numbers are easily removed. And in any case, guns aren’t left at crime scenes, unless the body of the evildoer is also left at the crime scene.

It is a movie / television fantasy that gun registries aid in solving crimes. Guns used in crimes are usually recovered with the suspect, or not at all. Consider Hawaii, (which, being an island a non-swimmable distance from the mainland, doesn’t have Chicago’s excuse of “it’s Indiana’s fault”) where the number of crimes solved because a registered gun was traced can be counted in single digits over its entire history as a state.

The only utility to a firearm registry is eventual confiscation.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

It looks like there really is no problem and any type of proposal isn’t good enough.

So like all other mass shootings in this country, carry on until the next one. We’ll just bring up the same arguments again without any resolution. In the meantime let’s focus on the real “bad guys”... not white males and their guns.

 

[Tee Cell]

The only utility to a firearm registry is eventual confiscation.[/QUOTE]

Help me to understand. If the motivation is confiscation then that would occur with or without a registry. If it got to the point where guns were going to be confiscated I dont see anyone saying "Damn if only we had a registry! Might as well give up on trying to confiscate these guns."

 

[jwk]

View attachment 225251

We are actually #1. We have 4% of the world’s population and 42% of the guns. Japan has 1/3 of the population of the US but in 2013 they had 13 gun deaths vs our 33,000. Who knows how many maimings there were.

What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings? International Comparisons Suggest an Answer

Take out California, New York, DC, and Chicago, and these rates drop dramatically. Gee, what do those four have in common - oh yeah - some of the most strict gun control laws in the country. And the most liberals - hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

 

[Onefellswoop87]

Take out California, New York, DC, and Chicago, and these rates drop dramatically. Gee, what do those four have in common - oh yeah - some of the most strict gun control laws in the country. And the most liberals - hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Stats of the States - Firearm Mortality

Good try.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Stats of the States - Firearm Mortality

Good try.

Umm, that doesn't disprove his point as far as I can see.

 

[pgg]

It looks like there really is no problem and any type of proposal isn’t good enough.

The problem with violence and crime is largely economic and grounded in broken / single-or-no-parent families, drug abuse (and misguided War on Drugs), and the despair produced by poverty.

You seem to think that the solution to violence is to limit access to weapons, when the real solution is economic opportunity and prosperity for all.

If you wish to level criticism at conservatives and the Republican Party, and they sure deserve it, this is where the argument should go.

To make a medical analogy, treating violent crime with gun control is (at best) symptomatic therapy with horrendous side effects, while ignoring the underlying cause.

So like all other mass shootings in this country, carry on until the next one.

Yes. Periodic mass shootings are the acceptable and predictable consequence of having an armed population.

They could possibly be reduced (maybe, eventually, over many years) if we banned and confiscated all firearms and adopted Japan / UK / Australia style prohibition laws. But the price of doing so is too high.

I want ordinary citizens, the American public at large, to be armed (so did the Founders who wrote the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights). I want individuals to have the capacity for violence. I want them to be dangerous. I accept the risk of occasional crazy people shooting random bystanders.

We’ll just bring up the same arguments again without any resolution.

It’s funny that you say that we repeat these arguments again and again, when one of your side’s key talking points is that our side refuses to have a discussion about gun control.

We have the discussion constantly. Your emotional, fact-deficient arguments just keep failing. The only places they make any progress are the states dominated by the Democratic Party where discussion isn’t necessary, in the echo chambers of Democrat supermajority legislatures.

In the meantime let’s focus on the real “bad guys”... not white males and their guns.

“White males and their guns”?

You really want to take the issue of murders involving firearms in that direction?

The poverty, gang violence, drug trafficking, and associated crime that accounts for the vast majority of murders in the United States ... well, let’s just say that Chicago, DC, New Orleans, and other high murder areas do not have a “white males and their guns” problem.

 

[Onefellswoop87]

Umm, that doesn't disprove his point as far as I can see.

How closely did you look? His implication was that those locales/states are violent because . . . liberals. I don’t plan on really touching his reasoning, but California and NY and Illinois aren’t even at the top of the list of gun deaths per 100k.

And on a per capita basis, Chicago and DC also aren’t even near the top . . . cause liberals?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thetrace.org/2016/10/chicago-gun-violence-per-capita-rate/amp/

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

How closely did you look? His implication was that those locales/states are violent because . . . liberals. I don’t plan on really touching his reasoning, but California and NY and Illinois aren’t even at the top of the list of gun deaths per 100k.

And on a per capita basis, Chicago and DC also aren’t even near the top . . . cause liberals?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thetrace.org/2016/10/chicago-gun-violence-per-capita-rate/amp/

Yeah I was trying to ignore the liberal part as well but they do have the most restrictive gun laws...

Per capita, they aren't the highest that's true. But there absolute numbers of deaths are quite high. California, Illinois, and NY account for right at 40% of our total gun deaths but only 22% of our population.

 

[Southpaw]

The problem with violence and crime is largely economic and grounded in broken / single-or-no-parent families, drug abuse (and misguided War on Drugs), and the despair produced by poverty.

You seem to think that the solution to violence is to limit access to weapons, when the real solution is economic opportunity and prosperity for all.

If you wish to level criticism at conservatives and the Republican Party, and they sure deserve it, this is where the argument should go.

I’ve pointed out that it’s a societal problem, and it’s true. The larger issue in America right now is the breakdown of its societal fabric. It’s easily visible in the black community (let’s call it what it is, as opposed to listing a few cities and calling them liberal enclaves, which is misrepresenting what it is). There are plenty of highly educated, highly populated areas (basically every large city) in the US, without gun problems, and they essentially all go Democrat.

Guns, and handguns in particular, are a problem primarily because of the breakdown in our society. It doesn’t help, in fact it greatly harms (which is what everyone is pointing out), that guns are so available (as nimbus pointed out with the graph).

However, if you take out all of the homicides and suicides, what are we left with? Angry, depressed white males killing soft targets with assault rifles? Are we to simply ignore it as a ‘blip on the radar’ or acknowledge it as a problem that should be solved? Unfortunately, I really don’t see why the NRA and gun owners find themselves on the wrong side of this argument each and every time. It makes them look obstructionist for the wrong reasons (at least to me, someone who enjoys hunting and respects gun ownership). It’ll take both sides to find common ground.

Actually the NRA should thank their lucky stars that cities like NO, Chicago, LA, etc have the handgun issues that they do. Because if they didnt then the ‘depressed white males with assault rifles issue’ would stand out even more than it already does.

 

[Onefellswoop87]

Yeah I was trying to ignore the liberal part as well but they do have the most restrictive gun laws...

Per capita, they aren't the highest that's true. But there absolute numbers of deaths are quite high. California, Illinois, and NY account for right at 40% of our total gun deaths but only 22% of our population.

Where did you find your numbers?

In 2016 (not including suicides) NYC has about 1000 gun deaths and Chicago had about 750 out of about 12,000 total. That’s about 14.5%

NYC has a population of about 8.5 million and Chicago about 3 million. The USA has a total of about 325 million. Those two cities account for about 3.5% of the population.

Disproportionate? Yes. But not like your stats. And that’s why we compare per capita rates. Not raw total numbers. And those places @jwk mentioned are lower than many “red” cities and states. Because . . . liberals?

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Where did you find your numbers?

In 2016 (not including suicides) NYC has about 1000 gun deaths and Chicago had about 750 out of about 12,000 total. That’s about 14.5%

NYC has a population of about 8.5 million and Chicago about 3 million. The USA has a total of about 325 million. Those two cities account for about 3.5% of the population.

Disproportionate? Yes. But not like your stats. And that’s why we compare per capita rates. Not raw total numbers. And those places @jwk mentioned are lower than many “red” cities and states. Because . . . liberals?

For the gun deaths, I used the website you linked from the CDC. For the population results, I used a projection based on the 2010 census data.

 

[Onefellswoop87]

For the gun deaths, I used the website you linked from the CDC. For the population results, I used a projection based on the 2010 census data.

You and I were most recently making comparisons between cities vs among states. That’s why the huge difference in our percentages.

Either way I don’t think anyone is surprised that population dense areas have gun deaths but I do think that the lower per capita rates are more telling than the raw numbers. Maybe gun control does work to decrease gun deaths. And also Chicago isn’t what POTUS describes on Twitter.

But as an aside this conversation shows the inherent downsides of statistics: it’s quite easy to make factual numbers prove whichever point you are trying to make.

 

[deleted480308]

I’ve pointed out that it’s a societal problem, and it’s true. The larger issue in America right now is the breakdown of its societal fabric. It’s easily visible in the black community (let’s call it what it is, as opposed to listing a few cities and calling them liberal enclaves, which is misrepresenting what it is). There are plenty of highly educated, highly populated areas (basically every large city) in the US, without gun problems, and they essentially all go Democrat.

Guns, and handguns in particular, are a problem primarily because of the breakdown in our society. It doesn’t help, in fact it greatly harms (which is what everyone is pointing out), that guns are so available (as nimbus pointed out with the graph).

However, if you take out all of the homicides and suicides, what are we left with? Angry, depressed white males killing soft targets with assault rifles? Are we to simply ignore it as a ‘blip on the radar’ or acknowledge it as a problem that should be solved? Unfortunately, I really don’t see why the NRA and gun owners find themselves on the wrong side of this argument each and every time. It makes them look obstructionist for the wrong reasons (at least to me, someone who enjoys hunting and respects gun ownership). It’ll take both sides to find common ground.

Actually the NRA should thank their lucky stars that cities like NO, Chicago, LA, etc have the handgun issues that they do. Because if they didnt then the ‘depressed white males with assault rifles issue’ would stand out even more than it already does.

It’s silly to try to restrict innocent people’s rights because some people misuse a good tool

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

You and I were most recently making comparisons between cities vs among states. That’s why the huge difference in our percentages.

Either way I don’t think anyone is surprised that population dense areas have gun deaths but I do think that the lower per capita rates are more telling than the raw numbers. Maybe gun control does work to decrease gun deaths. And also Chicago isn’t what POTUS describes on Twitter.

But as an aside this conversation shows the inherent downsides of statistics: it’s quite easy to make factual numbers prove whichever point you are trying to make.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics...

 

[Southpaw]

It’s silly to try to restrict innocent people’s rights because some people misuse a good tool

Am I right in saying that you would’ve defended Stephen Paddocks right to own assault rifles literally hours (minutes? days?) before his siege on the truly innocent? I wouldn’t use your definition of innocent so freely.

 

[deleted480308]

Am I right in saying that you would’ve defended Stephen Paddocks right to own assault rifles literally hours (minutes? days?) before his siege on the truly innocent? I wouldn’t use your definition of innocent so freely.

If he had not been a)convicted (or indicted and under the process of trial) of a violent crime or of b)planning/threatening one or deemed c)medically psychotic/dangerous then there would be no appropriate reason to restrict his ownership. Just owning those items does not make someone a criminal, nor should it

 

[Southpaw]

If he had not been a)convicted (or indicted and under the process of trial) of a violent crime or of b)planning/threatening one or deemed c)medically psychotic/dangerous then there would be no appropriate reason to restrict his ownership. Just owning those items does not make someone a criminal, nor should it

So then ‘No’ by your ‘b’ criteria. And how do you suppose we enforce that to prevent further killing of soft targets by the mentally ill? The ‘b’ and/or ‘c’ of your own criteria?

 

[deleted59964]

i just noticed the title of this thread is "
Celebrating The 2nd Amendment One Fine Firearm At A Time"

shouldn't it be "celebrating the 2nd Amendment One Mass Murder at a Time"?

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

So then ‘No’ by your ‘b’ criteria. And how do you suppose we enforce that to prevent further killing of soft targets by the mentally ill? The ‘b’ and/or ‘c’ of your own criteria?

Air Force head says Texas gunman's history should have been reported

 

[deleted480308]

So then ‘No’ by your ‘b’ criteria. And how do you suppose we enforce that to prevent further killing of soft targets by the mentally ill? The ‘b’ and/or ‘c’ of your own criteria?

I don’t know all of paddocks history. Had he been convicted/indicted for planning an attack? (If so his possession would have been already illegal) or was he already psychotic to the point of involuntary commital? (If so his possession would already be illegal to my knowledge)

Which situation was he?

 

[Southpaw]

I don’t know all of paddocks history. Had he been convicted/indicted for planning an attack? (If so his possession would have been already illegal) or was he already psychotic to the point of involuntary commital? (If so his possession would already be illegal to my knowledge)

Which situation was he?

Neither per the evidence so far. Per your criteria he legally owned assault rifles as he committed the largest mass murder in US History.

 

[deleted480308]

Neither per the evidence so far. Per your criteria he legally owned assault rifles as he committed the largest mass murder in US History.

That’s how the universe works. We can’t ban all items that just might get misused by someone someday. Even things you find scary like guns are legitimately owned by normal people. We can’t go all minority report and predict the future so yes, the cost of people maintaining their rights is that occasionally someone will misuse those rights and for their first offense there really isn’t much that can be done about it. Some people do evil things and we might not be able to prevent their first one