Tigger, I don't think I saw a response to this. Would you mind? I'm curious how you feel about the importance of the dead people over your own?

All I'm saying is that individuals should have a choice, that government should not tell people they cannot choose to protect themselves.

I'm with you just as soon as someone puts forth "common sense gun control" that actually removes guns from the hands of would-be criminals without taking them from non-crazy citizens. My struggle with all of the proposals of which I am aware is that while many of them may make people feel better, they don't actually solve much. Sort of like the TSA theater at airports...

As stated elsewhere, if I see that on the street and I have a choice, I'm running away, as I would expect most sane people to do. However, for a recent example, consider the young men on the French train a few weeks ago. They recognized that an attack was imminent, there was no where to run, so they attempted to intervene. Fortunately, they were successful and casualties were minimized.

I'm curious: why eliminate car jackings or home invasions from your criteria? It doesn't matter when or where it occurs, an imminent threat to your life is a threat that must be eliminated if you are to survive.

That may be the argument of the far right, and it is no more practical than the argument of the far left (i.e., get rid of all the guns). It's certainly not my argument.

Sadly, our democracy is set up such that the bare majority who agree with anything can (and often do) impose their will on the slightly-less-than-majority who disagree. There are lots of laws that I don't like, and many of them were passed at the urging of only slightly more than a majority. Some of them weren't even created by anyone other than a few unelected government officials, but that's another discussion altogether.

I agree with you that the Second Amendment is not being interpreted properly, but we likely disagree on its intent. I believe that when considered in light of the war that was fought against a government that had, among other things, tried to ban private citizens from owning rifles and swords (i.e., the most effective small arms of that time), the Second Amendment was written to enshrine the ability of citizens to defend themselves against their own government's overreaching.

Again, I agree. The trick is for us to find something that actually does the job.

We're on similar pages here. (I don't agree with the far right any more than I agree with the far left, on this issue or any other.) I don't want confirmed crazies having access to deadly weapons.

I appreciate that. I assure you that while we may not agree on some things, I am never intentionally trolling. I don't have time for that crap.

Good point, and agreed.

Amen. You're preaching to the choir, as the saying goes. (Of course, I'd never be in a choir, or a church/synagogue/mosque/etc., but I respect those who do believe.)

Yes, because neither are practical tools for self defense. I am not one of those extremists who wants everyone to have easy access to everything.


I agree; neither should we ignore the lesson of how bad it can get if we are not paying attention. The very fact that we have these discussions -- openly, which is not permitted in much of the world -- shows that we are paying attention. That's a good thing, in my opinion.

While it is true that an individual citizen could not hope to stop a government attack, a sufficient mass of citizens could. At the very least, they could make it difficult enough to serve as a deterrent. One of the reasons the WWII Japanese never planned to invade the mainland US is that their planning staff realized that there were millions of Americans who owned military-grade rifles. While those can't compete with heavy weaponry in a stand-up fight, unless you are bent on destruction rather than subjugation, a mass of rifles wielded by determined people can be an effective deterrent.

There's too many stupid liberals on this

She was understanding of the apprehension people felt around open carry people though.


http://m.nydailynews.com/news/nation...383689?cid=msn

While I don't disagree outright, I would be wary about the details of how this would actually work. There are many mental health professionals that seem to believe that the simple desire to have a firearm is a mental illness.

We'll just disagree here. There are a lot of things that people don't need, and whose choices I don't agree with, but I'm not about to tell them what they can and cannot own. Also, it's not that the definition "could be argued" but rather that there is no viable definition. Any definition I have ever read amounts to "weapons that look scary to me," which is not a sound basis for decision-making. Oh, and it's not a "clip," it's a magazine. A clip is a different thing entirely.

I'd rather people open carry than concealed carry, for the most part. I recognize that this is likely a product of my current work environment, and I certainly don't expect you to agree.

I agree. I am just as frightened by the Rambo wannabes who carry firearms without proper training (not just in the mechanics of their use but also in making the critical decisions surrounding if and when to shoot) as I am of the bad actors.

I'm against this as much as I am against "the authorities" knowing anything about my whereabouts, actions, possessions, etc. In my view, there's already far too much "official" intrusion and degradation of privacy.

That's an interesting idea, and if it could be made to work on a practical basis, I might agree.

My reservations about the motivations and skills of mental health professionals notwithstanding, I'm on board with the mental health exams. I don't agree with "make it tougher to get concealed carry permits" for a couple of reasons. The first is that one should not have to ask government permission to defend oneself. (You should absolutely be held accountable for taking action that injures someone else, even if unintentionally.) The second is that statistics show that in virtually every jurisdiction that has moved to "shall issue" permits rather than more restrictive schemes in which you must show a cause that a judge or sheriff agrees with, violent crime of all sorts has decreased over time. In places where restrictions remained the tightest, the longest, such as Chicago, Camden (NJ), Detroit, etc., violent crime rates remained high.

Sure. Like so many ways in which tax dollars are spent, I'd rather see this be funded through voluntary contributions, rather than confiscatory monies, but I agree with the premise.

I don't know that it would work the way you think it would, but I don't object, assuming the money to pay for the purchases is voluntary, too. I haven't done more than cursory research, so I could be wrong, but I believe that many buyback programs are correlated with a rise in break-ins, robberies, and home invasions as criminals seek to steal guns from citizens to sell.

I agree with this. Moreover, I want government to enforce similar laws that already exist, which they often do not.

Another interesting idea about which my main question would be funding, not intent.

I agree with the general premise of identifying the mentally ill and keeping them from deadly weapons. I agree with trying to identify them early. I agree that there are a ton of privacy issues that would have to be addressed adequately. Plus, there are a legion of nutcases who don't want to vaccinate their kids against deadly diseases despite the small risks involved because they believe that the risk is not worth it if their kid is sickened or dies. Can you imagine trying to get them to agree to regular mental health checks? Not that we shouldn't try...

Any correlation with the populace having access to assault rifles and other guns?

Like when?
Don't kid yourself thinking it makes you safer at home or anywhere else.

I can tell you from experience that everyone shoots better (as in, hitting the intended target rather than missing, or hitting something or someone else) with a rifle like the AR-15 than with a pistol, even at close range. You'd be amazed at how many people -- even police who are supposed to train regularly -- miss with a handgun from just a few feet away. The stress of having to shoot while being attacked magnifies this problem enormously. When in the US and out of the house I (legally) carry a concealed pistol, but my home defense weapon of choice is a rifle.

While I believe a person transporting multiple weapons should do so in the trunk of a vehicle, I don't want the police pulling me over because they happen to see my carry pistol secured where I can easily reach it while driving. But let's say they see a weapon and pull me over. Then what do you want them to be able to do? I'm not trolling, I'm asking a serious question. What action do you want them to be able to take against a citizen simply driving down the street?

So, you do want to prevent people from carrying firearms? We'll disagree on that, though we agree that preventing nutjobs from injuring people is the goal.

In an ideal world, I'd agree, but in the real world it is impossible to discern intent. Even if we could, would you support "pre-crime" police powers? Scary road to travel.

Locked up while I'm away from it (i.e., not home)? Agreed. But if someone breaks in and steals it while I am home, you cannot be serious about holding me liable. Of course, in my case, I'd be dead or injured because I'm not giving up a deadly weapon under my control without a fight. Believe me, I don't want anyone using my weapon to injure anyone.

I didn't respond to an obvious troll, and I won't, other than to say that their lives are as valuable to them and their families as mine is to me and my family. Preventing me from protecting myself would not prevent their deaths, nor will it prevent some nutjob from taking other lives in the future.

As I have said in other posts, if we could eliminate all guns, there would be no threat and no reason for anyone to be armed. But the world doesn't work that way, even in countries that have attempted to eliminate all guns.

I'd like eliminate deaths from drunk driving (which are far more numerous in US on an annual basis than deaths from shooting) but I'm not about to advocate banning alcohol or cars.

We can't eliminate all rapists either, so what's the point in rape being illegal?

Rape is illegal, and should be prosecuted , but we don't outlaw penises. We don't even castrate convicted offenders, which is the punishment I'd prefer.

If you're going to troll, at least put some thought into it.

Tigger, have you ever had any introspection and thought "I might be wrong and/or delusional?"

Note: this is rhetorical

Tigger, if you are for outlawing deaths from DUI, would you be up for the same regulations on guns as their are for vehicles and driving them? Do you agree that technology and laws have made driving much, much safer? Are you against the same for weapons of mass killing?

We already know the answer to that.

The kind of people making these arguments are the exact kind who end up killing multiple people. It's insane. It's scary. You have very scary opinions.

Gotta hand it to the band of heavily armed rednecks who prevented the Trail of Tears.

Hey wow so in a tremendous upset it turns out Freedom McLovin over here turned out to be a bit of a ****ing weirdo.


There's something interesting in how often this sort of **** happens, putative libertarians who also have incredible authoritarian impulses when it comes to other people. Like Proph in the DUI thread over in Unchained, just to see another bizarre example of it. I assume it has something to do with having a very simple-minded world view, all black and white. Good people get freedom, bad people get castrated.

My point is that trying to make guns (as the instrument of hundreds of deaths per year) illegal is almost as nuts as trying to eliminate tens of thousands of deaths from DUI by eliminating cars or alcohol.

You can disagree, of course, but try to do so without name calling. It dimishes your position. Plus, it outs you as an ******* who is arguing emotionally instead of actually thinking about and trying to solve the problem.

Or, continue your mental masturbation, I suppose.

No, I'm for freedom to do what you want until you hurt someone else. Then, I'm for heavy punishment and preventing you from being able to do it again.

In the case of rapists, make it so they cannot rape. For murderers, kill them. Fortunately, in the case of nut job mass murderers that's usually the outcome, administered on the spot as the only way to stop them.

Not to mention all the Patriots who stood up for the Japanese Americans rights... oh wait.

This last line is funny considering how ****ing badly you botched the number of deaths by firearm (Note: about 30000 in 2014, not quite in the hundreds you decided to post there.)

Don't the vast majority of these mass shooters end up taking out themselves instead of being stopped by somebody else with a gun?

Thought we were talking about mass murder incidents.

Yes, once people with guns show up to oppose them.

Sure arresting people works but we can also implement things to improve public safety to make it or we don't have to arrest so many people after the fact.

http://harvardmagazine.com/2004/09/d...he-barrel.html

If you can't see how ridiculous this is in the context of mass shootings then just wow.

So you're advocating for thought as a crime, rather than action? Now I'm the one saying, "just wow."

People against guns aren't in favour of this. In fact it's the gun owners who want a militarised police force. Because they are all ignorant or idiots.

They want a militarised police for the same reason they think they need to carry a gun.