another school shooting in U.S. of A. :(

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

28th December 2012, 20:06
Jag_Warrior

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Is that really the root cause, though? I would argue that it's not, and that the root cause is to be found rather deeper in society, more specifically in the culture of widespread gun ownership. It follows, surely, that as well as there being more legal owners of firearms there are also going to be more illegal owners?

There's certainly a correlation, as without the firearm, there cannot be a firearm related crime. But a correlation does not prove causation. If that were the case, then communities with very high per capita firearms ownership should have higher than average firearms related crimes. But that is not the case. The area where I live has extremely high per capita firearms ownership, yet I don't believe there was a firearms related homicide in this area (so far) in 2012. I used to live near Washington, D.C. Handgun ownership (legal) was all but banned there when I lived in that area, yet Washington had one of the highest firearms related murder rates in North America back then. So that's why I would say that firearms ownership (in itself) is not a root cause. Firearms don't cause people to kill each other. They do assist in that endeavor though.

IMO, too often we continue to tip-toe around what the data shows us. That's why I posted that link. Finding better ways to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals (those who have already been convicted of violent crimes) is the low hanging fruit on this issue. And while I'm sure there is a wide variety of socio-economic reasons and explanations for how and why people commit crimes, the data points to criminals (and mental defectives) possessing firearms as the primary area that should be addressed. I would say that the root cause in their case is their complete and selfish disregard for the property and lives of others and their willingness to take or steal what they want. Why did you rob the bank? I wanted the money. Why did you rape the girl? I wanted her. Why did you jack the car? I wanted to see how it drove and then sell it. Why did you shoot and kill Jose and Pookie? I didn't like them. So on and so forth...

And while an examination and study of American culture would probably be interesting, I'm not sure that that would assist in getting firearms away from criminals. Maybe it would. And if so, I'd be all for that too. BTW, based on what I saw this weekend at a gunshow, I now feel that open gunshows may also be an area that needs to be re-examined - and that's not a position that most NRA members or gun owners would want to hear.
28th December 2012, 20:32
Starter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

As has been vociferously explains by Starter when I mentioned this, the Second Amendment basically is only the second half:
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Not once in any discussion and especially anything by the NRA is the first half of the clause ever admitted. Also, the right to "self-defence" which is also put forward as the excuse is not only not mentioned in the constitution at all but the right itself or so-called "Castle Doctrine" which is supposed to come from English Common Law, never exists in any case law pre-1776 or after it in the UK at all. It is a pure invention of people who wish to intrepret the Second Amendment as an absolute.

As an aside, the Second Amendment refers to "the right of the people" as a collective whereas the Fifth Amendment specifically relates to a "person" in the singular. Again, I've never heard any sensible argument which adequately explains why the Second Amendment should have even ever been applied to an individual and certainly not in the absolute sense.

The intent of the writers of our Constitution is further explained in the 'Federalist Papers', as has been noted before. Those documents go at length to talk about many of our basic freedoms and not just the second amendment. They are relied upon by the Supreme Court when interpretations of the Constitution are in question.
28th December 2012, 20:40
Starter

Quote:

Originally Posted by D-Type

But in no way is the US morally superior to other countries, nor is the US way necessarily the right way.

I'm not going back to read 700+ posts, but I don't think anyone has postulated the first part of your statement and the second part applies to most countries including the US.
28th December 2012, 20:45
keysersoze

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDunnell

You didn't, I know. But you did suggest that, in effect, the US was unique in being unique, which is patently an absurd notion.

Correct, that would be an absurd notion. When did I suggest that?
28th December 2012, 21:06
anthonyvop

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDunnell

The fact that someone holds one view doesn't necessarily mean they automatically hold another one, you know.

Not necessarily but usually they do. You are a perfect example. Your anti-freedom, Fascists beliefs fall directly in line with your desire that the people be prevented from questioning your policies by disarming them.
28th December 2012, 21:41
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Not necessarily but usually they do. You are a perfect example. Your anti-freedom, Fascists beliefs fall directly in line with your desire that the people be prevented from questioning your policies by disarming them.

More proof, as if it were needed, that your mental equilibrium, sense of judgment and level of intelligence are not those of a person fit to have in their possession a dangerous weapon of any sort.

I do hope you realise that I find you hilarious, by the way.
28th December 2012, 21:43
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by keysersoze

Correct, that would be an absurd notion. When did I suggest that?

Statements such as 'I'll tell you what the bottom line is: that my country is a unique one' would seem to suggest that you feel this applies solely to the USA. Certainly, it's very much implied in your tone.
28th December 2012, 21:50
anthonyvop

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDunnell

More proof, as if it were needed, that your mental equilibrium, sense of judgment and level of intelligence are not those of a person fit to have in their possession a dangerous weapon of any sort.

I do hope you realise that I find you hilarious, by the way.

The truth hurts you so much that you have to resort to infantile personal insults?

You are for a Centrally, government controlled economy, You are for the Government control and support of Industry, You are for the state over the rights of individual.(don't even try to deny that one. You call for Gun control is Clear evidence). You oppose freedom of speech and expression and gladly support any government action to squash any "speech" you find unacceptable.

Soooooooooooooo please explain to us how you beliefs aren't fascist!
28th December 2012, 21:52
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

The truth hurts you so much that you have to resort to infantile personal insults?

In no sense have I said anything about you that isn't true. Would that the same could be said of your good self, sir.
28th December 2012, 22:03
anthonyvop

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDunnell

In no sense have I said anything about you that isn't true. Would that the same could be said of your good self, sir.

What I have said about you is Factual. What you have stated about me is based on your fascist opinion.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page