Gun Control and Mass Murder

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Gun Control and Mass Murder

Post by Belindi »

Belindi wrote: June 7th, 2022, 4:39 am
AverageBozo wrote: June 6th, 2022, 6:14 pm
Belindi wrote: June 6th, 2022, 8:35 am
AverageBozo wrote: June 6th, 2022, 7:52 am

The US Constitution is a living document via the amendment process,but nowhere in the document or its amendments is the possession of an AR-15 protected. It’s the interpretation that needs to be changed.
Interpretations are subjective. So whose interpretation are you talking about? I presume it's your own interpretation you are talking about.
The only interpretation that counts is neither yours nor mine. It is the responsibility of SCOTUS to interpret the law, including the American Constitution.
The judiciary interprets the law, true. In a free country such as is the USA the citizen as an individual has the right and the duty to change the law as and when democratic process demands.The Constitution is not Almighty God.
AverageBozo
Posts: 502
Joined: May 11th, 2021, 11:20 am

Re: Gun Control and Mass Murder

Post by AverageBozo »

Belindi wrote: June 7th, 2022, 4:39 am
AverageBozo wrote: June 6th, 2022, 6:14 pm
Belindi wrote: June 6th, 2022, 8:35 am
AverageBozo wrote: June 6th, 2022, 7:52 am

The US Constitution is a living document via the amendment process,but nowhere in the document or its amendments is the possession of an AR-15 protected. It’s the interpretation that needs to be changed.
Interpretations are subjective. So whose interpretation are you talking about? I presume it's your own interpretation you are talking about.
The only interpretation that counts is neither yours nor mine. It is the responsibility of SCOTUS to interpret the law, including the American Constitution.
The judiciary interprets the law, true. In a free country such as is the USA the citizen as an individual has the right and the duty to change the law as and when democratic process demands.
True, the Constitution is not. Regrettably, there’s little a citizen can do to change it, save communicating his wishes to his Representative & Senators, and maybe carry a placard during a rally or protest. If both houses of Congress agree on a draft amendment, then it goes to the States for ratification before being signed into law. A citizen can vote for candidates who espouse support for the desired new law. That’s about as far as it goes for an individual’s right & duty to change the law.
User avatar
Robert66
Posts: 521
Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm

Re: Gun Control and Mass Murder

Post by Robert66 »

GE Morton wrote: June 6th, 2022, 7:53 pm
Robert66 wrote: June 6th, 2022, 6:17 pm For example the notion that some weapons may be categorised as 'dangerous and unusual weapons', and that therefore there exists another category of weapons (dangerous yet usual, or commonly used, and therefore somehow publicly acceptable) warrants such examination. Heaven help us when 3D-printed, hand-held Javelin missile launchers become common.
All weapons are dangerous, by definition. If they were not they would not be effective weapons. So only "usual" requires any interpretation. And that is easily settled by observing their prevalence in the community. About half of all rifles and 85% of all handguns sold in the US in the last 20 years are semi-auto. They comprise about 20% of all firearms in the US (most of the rest of which are older weapons). That is pretty "usual."

https://www.ammunitiondepot.com/blog/wh ... automatics
Note I was not quarrelling over 'dangerous'. Much is made in the Court's opinion of the historic, or traditional, view of common or usual weapons, being those that a citizen possessed at home, and could bring when joining the militia. EG:

p.55: 'We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769) [etc.]
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and [p.56]
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
IV
We turn finally to the law at issue here. As we have said, the law totally bans handgun possession in the home. ... As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a
prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.'

So even as this opinion has become outdated (today we worry over AR-15s rather than M-16s; tomorrow - who knows) and the threat posed by such common or usual weapons becomes much greater, we can still make no impact on the solid wall that is the Second Amendment. For what? To uphold a tradition whereby, in theory, a militia might be organised to thwart still-expected tyranny. How realistic is the prospect of such an organised militia? No less powerful a figure than the recent POTUS Trump attempted such organisation, and we got an idiotic rabble, some wearing Viking horns. How realistic is the tyranny to be guarded against? Current POTUS Biden revealed his powerless position in the matter by imploring others to "do something". Hardly the words of a tyrant.

How united are the United States? Not at all when it comes to guns. Is the situation likely to change? Not while the Anti-Federalist concerns are catered to in interpreting the Constitution, while Federalist concerns go on being ignored.

Just as an aside, there was a time when the nature of, and degree of danger posed by a gun varied considerably:

'George Bemis . . . wore in his belt an old original "Allen" revolver, such as irreverent people called a "pepper-box." Simply drawing the trigger back, cocked and fired the pistol. As the trigger came back, the hammer would begin to rise and the barrel to turn over, and presently down would drop the hammer, and away would speed the ball. To aim along the turning barrel and hit the thing aimed at was a feat which was probably never done with an "Allen" in the world. But George's was a reliable weapon, nevertheless, because, as one of the stage-drivers afterward said, "If she didn't get what she went after, she would fetch something else." And so she did. She went after a deuce of spades nailed against a tree, once, and fetched a mule standing about thirty yards to the left of it. Bemis did not want the mule; but the owner came out with a double-barreled shotgun and persuaded him to buy it, anyhow. It was a cheerful weapon--the "Allen." Sometimes all its six barrels would go off at once, and then there was no safe place in all the region round about, but behind it.'

...

'I was armed to the teeth with a pitiful little Smith & Wesson's seven-shooter, which carried a ball like a homopathic pill, and it took the whole seven to make a dose for an adult. But I thought it was grand. It appeared to me to be a dangerous weapon. It had only one fault--you could not hit anything with it. One of our 'conductors' practiced awhile on a cow with it, and as long as she stood still and behaved herself she was safe; but as soon as she went to moving about, and he got to shooting at other things, she came to grief.'
Mark Twain, Roughing it, 1872

The Southern communities are just as peaceful and religious as the Northern. The Southerner may be more highly cultured, and anything he does is naturally conspicuous. Carrying a revolver is a fad, just a fad or a fashion; but the revolvers are mightly harmless. Of course there are desperadoes on the frontier, but that is the only part of the world they live in. Their deeds give a false character to their district. I have carried a revolver; lots of us do, but they are the most innocent things in the world.
- "Mark Twain Put to the Question" interview, Adelaide, South Australian Register, 10/14/1895
User avatar
Robert66
Posts: 521
Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm

Re: Gun Control and Mass Murder

Post by Robert66 »

*Edited and reposted for the sake of clarity
Robert66 wrote: June 7th, 2022, 5:18 pm
GE Morton wrote: June 6th, 2022, 7:53 pm
Robert66 wrote: June 6th, 2022, 6:17 pm For example the notion that some weapons may be categorised as 'dangerous and unusual weapons', and that therefore there exists another category of weapons (dangerous yet usual, or commonly used, and therefore somehow publicly acceptable) warrants such examination. Heaven help us when 3D-printed, hand-held Javelin missile launchers become common.
All weapons are dangerous, by definition. If they were not they would not be effective weapons. So only "usual" requires any interpretation. And that is easily settled by observing their prevalence in the community. About half of all rifles and 85% of all handguns sold in the US in the last 20 years are semi-auto. They comprise about 20% of all firearms in the US (most of the rest of which are older weapons). That is pretty "usual."

https://www.ammunitiondepot.com/blog/wh ... automatics
Note I was not quarrelling over 'dangerous'. Much is made in the Court's opinion of the historic, or traditional, view of common or usual weapons, being those that a citizen possessed at home, and could bring when joining the militia. eg:

p.55: 'We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769) [etc.]
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and [p.56]
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
IV
We turn finally to the law at issue here. As we have said, the law totally bans handgun possession in the home. ... As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a
prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.'

So even as this opinion has become outdated (today we worry over AR-15s rather than M-16s; tomorrow - who knows) and the threat posed by such common or usual weapons becomes much greater, we can still make no impact on the solid wall that is the Second Amendment. For what? To uphold a tradition whereby, in theory, a militia might be organised to thwart still-expected tyranny. How realistic is the prospect of such an organised militia? No less powerful a figure than the recent POTUS Trump attempted such organisation, and we got an idiotic rabble, some wearing Viking horns. How realistic is the tyranny to be guarded against? Current POTUS Biden revealed his powerless position in the matter by imploring others to "do something". Hardly the words of a tyrant.

How united are the United States? Not at all when it comes to guns. Is the situation likely to change? Not while the Anti-Federalist concerns are catered to in interpreting the Constitution, while Federalist concerns go on being ignored
.

Just as an aside, there was a time when the nature of, and degree of danger posed by a gun varied considerably:

'George Bemis . . . wore in his belt an old original "Allen" revolver, such as irreverent people called a "pepper-box." Simply drawing the trigger back, cocked and fired the pistol. As the trigger came back, the hammer would begin to rise and the barrel to turn over, and presently down would drop the hammer, and away would speed the ball. To aim along the turning barrel and hit the thing aimed at was a feat which was probably never done with an "Allen" in the world. But George's was a reliable weapon, nevertheless, because, as one of the stage-drivers afterward said, "If she didn't get what she went after, she would fetch something else." And so she did. She went after a deuce of spades nailed against a tree, once, and fetched a mule standing about thirty yards to the left of it. Bemis did not want the mule; but the owner came out with a double-barreled shotgun and persuaded him to buy it, anyhow. It was a cheerful weapon--the "Allen." Sometimes all its six barrels would go off at once, and then there was no safe place in all the region round about, but behind it.'

...

'I was armed to the teeth with a pitiful little Smith & Wesson's seven-shooter, which carried a ball like a homopathic pill, and it took the whole seven to make a dose for an adult. But I thought it was grand. It appeared to me to be a dangerous weapon. It had only one fault--you could not hit anything with it. One of our 'conductors' practiced awhile on a cow with it, and as long as she stood still and behaved herself she was safe; but as soon as she went to moving about, and he got to shooting at other things, she came to grief.'
Mark Twain, Roughing it, 1872

The Southern communities are just as peaceful and religious as the Northern. The Southerner may be more highly cultured, and anything he does is naturally conspicuous. Carrying a revolver is a fad, just a fad or a fashion; but the revolvers are mightly harmless. Of course there are desperadoes on the frontier, but that is the only part of the world they live in. Their deeds give a false character to their district. I have carried a revolver; lots of us do, but they are the most innocent things in the world.
- "Mark Twain Put to the Question" interview, Adelaide, South Australian Register, 10/14/1895
User avatar
InfinityMuse
Posts: 68
Joined: October 20th, 2022, 1:24 am

Re: Gun Control and Mass Murder

Post by InfinityMuse »

The problem with gun control arguments is the lack of knowledge of the political arena. Pro gun control political socialites are totally outrageous. There is a feminist pro feminine-women subservience movement that wants to disarm Washington to over through the state of thought control. The biggest issue with gun control is what happens next? Declared state of optimism as a prostitution of imperialism? It surly is a crazy attack of bias on retributions in criminal justice.
User avatar
InfinityMuse
Posts: 68
Joined: October 20th, 2022, 1:24 am

Re: Gun Control and Mass Murder

Post by InfinityMuse »

Robert66 wrote: September 14th, 2022, 4:02 pm *Edited and reposted for the sake of clarity
Robert66 wrote: June 7th, 2022, 5:18 pm
GE Morton wrote: June 6th, 2022, 7:53 pm
Robert66 wrote: June 6th, 2022, 6:17 pm For example the notion that some weapons may be categorised as 'dangerous and unusual weapons', and that therefore there exists another category of weapons (dangerous yet usual, or commonly used, and therefore somehow publicly acceptable) warrants such examination. Heaven help us when 3D-printed, hand-held Javelin missile launchers become common.
All weapons are dangerous, by definition. If they were not they would not be effective weapons. So only "usual" requires any interpretation. And that is easily settled by observing their prevalence in the community. About half of all rifles and 85% of all handguns sold in the US in the last 20 years are semi-auto. They comprise about 20% of all firearms in the US (most of the rest of which are older weapons). That is pretty "usual."

https://www.ammunitiondepot.com/blog/wh ... automatics
Note I was not quarrelling over 'dangerous'. Much is made in the Court's opinion of the historic, or traditional, view of common or usual weapons, being those that a citizen possessed at home, and could bring when joining the militia. eg:

p.55: 'We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769) [etc.]
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and [p.56]
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
IV
We turn finally to the law at issue here. As we have said, the law totally bans handgun possession in the home. ... As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a
prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.'

So even as this opinion has become outdated (today we worry over AR-15s rather than M-16s; tomorrow - who knows) and the threat posed by such common or usual weapons becomes much greater, we can still make no impact on the solid wall that is the Second Amendment. For what? To uphold a tradition whereby, in theory, a militia might be organised to thwart still-expected tyranny. How realistic is the prospect of such an organised militia? No less powerful a figure than the recent POTUS Trump attempted such organisation, and we got an idiotic rabble, some wearing Viking horns. How realistic is the tyranny to be guarded against? Current POTUS Biden revealed his powerless position in the matter by imploring others to "do something". Hardly the words of a tyrant.

How united are the United States? Not at all when it comes to guns. Is the situation likely to change? Not while the Anti-Federalist concerns are catered to in interpreting the Constitution, while Federalist concerns go on being ignored
.

Just as an aside, there was a time when the nature of, and degree of danger posed by a gun varied considerably:

'George Bemis . . . wore in his belt an old original "Allen" revolver, such as irreverent people called a "pepper-box." Simply drawing the trigger back, cocked and fired the pistol. As the trigger came back, the hammer would begin to rise and the barrel to turn over, and presently down would drop the hammer, and away would speed the ball. To aim along the turning barrel and hit the thing aimed at was a feat which was probably never done with an "Allen" in the world. But George's was a reliable weapon, nevertheless, because, as one of the stage-drivers afterward said, "If she didn't get what she went after, she would fetch something else." And so she did. She went after a deuce of spades nailed against a tree, once, and fetched a mule standing about thirty yards to the left of it. Bemis did not want the mule; but the owner came out with a double-barreled shotgun and persuaded him to buy it, anyhow. It was a cheerful weapon--the "Allen." Sometimes all its six barrels would go off at once, and then there was no safe place in all the region round about, but behind it.'

...

'I was armed to the teeth with a pitiful little Smith & Wesson's seven-shooter, which carried a ball like a homopathic pill, and it took the whole seven to make a dose for an adult. But I thought it was grand. It appeared to me to be a dangerous weapon. It had only one fault--you could not hit anything with it. One of our 'conductors' practiced awhile on a cow with it, and as long as she stood still and behaved herself she was safe; but as soon as she went to moving about, and he got to shooting at other things, she came to grief.'
Mark Twain, Roughing it, 1872

The Southern communities are just as peaceful and religious as the Northern. The Southerner may be more highly cultured, and anything he does is naturally conspicuous. Carrying a revolver is a fad, just a fad or a fashion; but the revolvers are mightly harmless. Of course there are desperadoes on the frontier, but that is the only part of the world they live in. Their deeds give a false character to their district. I have carried a revolver; lots of us do, but they are the most innocent things in the world.
- "Mark Twain Put to the Question" interview, Adelaide, South Australian Register, 10/14/1895
Hence fourth unusual weapons. People are being rigged with Brain mass interface tech that kills them when they swipe a debt card. Thought control being disguised as orthodontics and cancer reasearch equipment. What is a gun now ' days? Murder is sooo predicted.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Gun Control and Mass Murder

Post by Sy Borg »

What is the value of an American life? It depends. A life on "our side" is priceless. A life on "their side" is worth less than spit.

So (many) Americans insist on their right to destroy each other and their society as a whole. They deeply resent outsiders trying to find ways to save them from themselves.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Gun Control and Mass Murder

Post by LuckyR »

Sy Borg wrote: November 1st, 2022, 4:02 pm What is the value of an American life? It depends. A life on "our side" is priceless. A life on "their side" is worth less than spit.

So (many) Americans insist on their right to destroy each other and their society as a whole. They deeply resent outsiders trying to find ways to save them from themselves.
Guns definitely cause damage, but irrespective of the thread's title, it's definitely not in the form of mass murder, or generally even murder. It's mostly suicide and if you add accidents to the number of suicides, it's an even greater majority.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Gun Control and Mass Murder

Post by Sy Borg »

Lucky, 40,000+ deaths by firearm per year could be said to constitute a "mass".
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Gun Control and Mass Murder

Post by LuckyR »

Sy Borg wrote: November 1st, 2022, 11:54 pm Lucky, 40,000+ deaths by firearm per year could be said to constitute a "mass".
Most definitely, though the term "mass murder" specifically refers to mass shootings, a relatively new phenomenon associated with dramatic news coverage, out of proportion with the fact that they account for about 0.2% of the murders in the US. Of course suicides by gun outnumber murders by gun in the US.
"As usual... it depends."
ernestm
Posts: 433
Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am

Re: Gun Control and Mass Murder

Post by ernestm »

Robert66 wrote: September 14th, 2022, 4:02 pm *Edited and reposted for the sake of clarity
Robert66 wrote: June 7th, 2022, 5:18 pm
GE Morton wrote: June 6th, 2022, 7:53 pm
Robert66 wrote: June 6th, 2022, 6:17 pm For example the notion that some weapons may be categorised as 'dangerous and unusual weapons', and that therefore there exists another category of weapons (dangerous yet usual, or commonly used, and therefore somehow publicly acceptable) warrants such examination. Heaven help us when 3D-printed, hand-held Javelin missile launchers become common.
All weapons are dangerous, by definition. If they were not they would not be effective weapons. So only "usual" requires any interpretation. And that is easily settled by observing their prevalence in the community. About half of all rifles and 85% of all handguns sold in the US in the last 20 years are semi-auto. They comprise about 20% of all firearms in the US (most of the rest of which are older weapons). That is pretty "usual."

https://www.ammunitiondepot.com/blog/wh ... automatics
Note I was not quarrelling over 'dangerous'. Much is made in the Court's opinion of the historic, or traditional, view of common or usual weapons, being those that a citizen possessed at home, and could bring when joining the militia. eg:

p.55: 'We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769) [etc.]
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and [p.56]
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
IV
We turn finally to the law at issue here. As we have said, the law totally bans handgun possession in the home. ... As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a
prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.'

So even as this opinion has become outdated (today we worry over AR-15s rather than M-16s; tomorrow - who knows) and the threat posed by such common or usual weapons becomes much greater, we can still make no impact on the solid wall that is the Second Amendment. For what? To uphold a tradition whereby, in theory, a militia might be organised to thwart still-expected tyranny. How realistic is the prospect of such an organised militia? No less powerful a figure than the recent POTUS Trump attempted such organisation, and we got an idiotic rabble, some wearing Viking horns. How realistic is the tyranny to be guarded against? Current POTUS Biden revealed his powerless position in the matter by imploring others to "do something". Hardly the words of a tyrant.

How united are the United States? Not at all when it comes to guns. Is the situation likely to change? Not while the Anti-Federalist concerns are catered to in interpreting the Constitution, while Federalist concerns go on being ignored
.

Just as an aside, there was a time when the nature of, and degree of danger posed by a gun varied considerably:

'George Bemis . . . wore in his belt an old original "Allen" revolver, such as irreverent people called a "pepper-box." Simply drawing the trigger back, cocked and fired the pistol. As the trigger came back, the hammer would begin to rise and the barrel to turn over, and presently down would drop the hammer, and away would speed the ball. To aim along the turning barrel and hit the thing aimed at was a feat which was probably never done with an "Allen" in the world. But George's was a reliable weapon, nevertheless, because, as one of the stage-drivers afterward said, "If she didn't get what she went after, she would fetch something else." And so she did. She went after a deuce of spades nailed against a tree, once, and fetched a mule standing about thirty yards to the left of it. Bemis did not want the mule; but the owner came out with a double-barreled shotgun and persuaded him to buy it, anyhow. It was a cheerful weapon--the "Allen." Sometimes all its six barrels would go off at once, and then there was no safe place in all the region round about, but behind it.'

...

'I was armed to the teeth with a pitiful little Smith & Wesson's seven-shooter, which carried a ball like a homopathic pill, and it took the whole seven to make a dose for an adult. But I thought it was grand. It appeared to me to be a dangerous weapon. It had only one fault--you could not hit anything with it. One of our 'conductors' practiced awhile on a cow with it, and as long as she stood still and behaved herself she was safe; but as soon as she went to moving about, and he got to shooting at other things, she came to grief.'
Mark Twain, Roughing it, 1872

The Southern communities are just as peaceful and religious as the Northern. The Southerner may be more highly cultured, and anything he does is naturally conspicuous. Carrying a revolver is a fad, just a fad or a fashion; but the revolvers are mightly harmless. Of course there are desperadoes on the frontier, but that is the only part of the world they live in. Their deeds give a false character to their district. I have carried a revolver; lots of us do, but they are the most innocent things in the world.
- "Mark Twain Put to the Question" interview, Adelaide, South Australian Register, 10/14/1895
WhenI see this kind of thing these days, I can't help but think of the Lockheed versus Elon Musk paradigm. Ever since Lockheed designed the SR-71, it's been advancing the 'if it ain't quite right, add something more complicated to fix it.' People have started to notice that this doesn't work very well in the information age, because the more complicated things are more likely to go wrong too. So the DoD handed Lockheed their dream machine specs, and 21 years later, 16 years behind schedule, Lockheed handed back the F35 and a 1.1 trillion dollar bill.

It seems to me Musk is much better at it, having handed NASA the Raptor-2 rocket engine which is not only 95% fuel efficient, has 10% as many moving parts as its NASA equivalent, and 2% of the price, but also can be controlled so precisely it can land a rocket vertically when it comes back from space.

His method starts with making the design less stupid.

It is undeniable that the 2nd Amendment is very badly written. It should be just thrown out and replaced with something more sensible, such as 'people in wheelchairs and the like definitely need lethal self defense, but the rest of you wimps have lots of non-lethal defense means, so man the hell up.'
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Gun Control and Mass Murder

Post by Sy Borg »

LuckyR wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 2:17 am
Sy Borg wrote: November 1st, 2022, 11:54 pm Lucky, 40,000+ deaths by firearm per year could be said to constitute a "mass".
Of course suicides by gun outnumber murders by gun in the US.
It's a fair consideration, no doubt a product of retrograde euthanasia laws.

On the downside, guns make it easy for young, healthy people to make an irreversible error. I've heard it reported that most people who didn't die after a suicide attempt were glad they survived. Then again, perhaps that's why they survived? Maybe there was a lack of total conviction in their actions? Still, for sick and elderly facing a rough life end, having a gun around may be a blessing.

Still, it's a digression. The issue is that, if guns are so easy to get, then you end up with more lethally-armed nutters that you otherwise would. I don't think machine guns belong in urban settings, aside from Ukraine's situation. (Not that the US would ever be an enticing invasion target, guns or no guns).
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Gun Control and Mass Murder

Post by LuckyR »

Sy Borg wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 5:34 am
LuckyR wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 2:17 am
Sy Borg wrote: November 1st, 2022, 11:54 pm Lucky, 40,000+ deaths by firearm per year could be said to constitute a "mass".
Of course suicides by gun outnumber murders by gun in the US.
It's a fair consideration, no doubt a product of retrograde euthanasia laws.

On the downside, guns make it easy for young, healthy people to make an irreversible error. I've heard it reported that most people who didn't die after a suicide attempt were glad they survived. Then again, perhaps that's why they survived? Maybe there was a lack of total conviction in their actions? Still, for sick and elderly facing a rough life end, having a gun around may be a blessing.

Still, it's a digression. The issue is that, if guns are so easy to get, then you end up with more lethally-armed nutters that you otherwise would. I don't think machine guns belong in urban settings, aside from Ukraine's situation. (Not that the US would ever be an enticing invasion target, guns or no guns).
Very true on both accounts. Most decisions to commit suicide are performed within the hour of the attempt. In the absence of guns, most attempts are unsuccessful.

The US will never be invaded militarily by humans for exactly that reason, though since that is such a statistical unlikelihood regardless, it isn't a reasonable indication for unrestricted gun access.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Mounce574
Premium Member
Posts: 156
Joined: October 8th, 2021, 2:24 am
Location: Oklahoma

Re: Gun Control and Mass Murder

Post by Mounce574 »


His method starts with making the design less stupid.

It is undeniable that the 2nd Amendment is very badly written. It should be just thrown out and replaced with something more sensible, such as 'people in wheelchairs and the like definitely need lethal self defense, but the rest of you wimps have lots of non-lethal defense means, so man the hell up.'
There is an issue I have with this statement. I can kill you with my hands, a knife, and any number of items.
Also calling people wimps unless they are in a wheelchair is not valid. I am a 5'3 125lb female. If a man who is 6'0 200lbs wants to hurt me, could I possibly overpower him unarmed? Not in your life- and I have military training. I am going to use an equalizer. There is a saying "It was him or me." I am always going to pick me.

Gun control will not solve anything. It just allows criminals superior power. They know they won't get shot in house robbery. If the knowledge that they will get shot by a home owner, they are less likely to attempt the robbery. The police response time to a 911 call for a robbery in progress is anywhere from 10 minutes or longer- if you get to call them. It took 35 minutes for the police to arrive for me with the gun shots occurring during the 911 call. Had I not been able to get out of the house to the neighbor, I probably would have died. If I had a gun at the time, I know I could have incapacitated the man.

Hunting- the stupid statement from Biden (deer don't wear kevlar) is ignorant. Bears, mountain lions, wild hogs, and such don't wear kevlar but they can be found hunting deer as well. No gun? What are you going to do then? I hunt dear for food. I have used an AR-15. Keep in mind AR doesn't mean Assault Rifle. It is a brand name.
"Facts don't care about your feelings." Ben Shapiro
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." NF from Motto
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Gun Control and Mass Murder

Post by Sy Borg »

LuckyR wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 5:56 pm
Sy Borg wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 5:34 am
LuckyR wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 2:17 am
Sy Borg wrote: November 1st, 2022, 11:54 pm Lucky, 40,000+ deaths by firearm per year could be said to constitute a "mass".
Of course suicides by gun outnumber murders by gun in the US.
It's a fair consideration, no doubt a product of retrograde euthanasia laws.

On the downside, guns make it easy for young, healthy people to make an irreversible error. I've heard it reported that most people who didn't die after a suicide attempt were glad they survived. Then again, perhaps that's why they survived? Maybe there was a lack of total conviction in their actions? Still, for sick and elderly facing a rough life end, having a gun around may be a blessing.

Still, it's a digression. The issue is that, if guns are so easy to get, then you end up with more lethally-armed nutters that you otherwise would. I don't think machine guns belong in urban settings, aside from Ukraine's situation. (Not that the US would ever be an enticing invasion target, guns or no guns).
Very true on both accounts. Most decisions to commit suicide are performed within the hour of the attempt. In the absence of guns, most attempts are unsuccessful.

The US will never be invaded militarily by humans for exactly that reason, though since that is such a statistical unlikelihood regardless, it isn't a reasonable indication for unrestricted gun access.
Yes, fewer guns would mean fewer impulsive errors. Still, this is perhaps an unpopular view but, there are eight billion humans in the world and ...

The US is impossible. Allies on either side, long oceanic distances, the strongest military. Ultimately, the point of America's gun proliferation is for Americans to target other Americans.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021