The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: jc44 on May 25, 2022, 06:29:33 AM

Title: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: jc44 on May 25, 2022, 06:29:33 AM
Title says it all really
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: TheDrake on May 25, 2022, 08:48:49 AM
Dear conservative gun-nut parents. Stop teaching your children to use guns, don't give them access to guns, and don't teach them to worship guns like the individuals that have them are the Chosen People. These shootings are motivated by ego and power, which is fed by every post of you grinning with your long gun cocked at your hip. Please stop. I am not targeting any individual here, it is an open plea to the universe.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: rightleft22 on May 25, 2022, 09:36:36 AM
Cost of "freedom"  :'( 
Nothing is going to change... at least not in a positive direction. I'm surprised, not really, that we still pretend, same stories, same spin, same outrage, same sadness, same prayers, same, same, same. what is it they say about insanity?

Quote
These shootings are motivated by ego and power,
I might argue hopelessness and or fear
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: TheDrake on May 25, 2022, 10:23:40 AM
Well, yes those are linked. Trying to erase hopeless or powerless feelings by deciding who lives or dies. But it starts with, "look how badass I am with my firearm". And then after getting positive responses, making sure you set up a livestream of your murders for your new fans.

Meanwhile, all the conservatives are mad at Joe Biden for making political points after "the tragedy". I forget how long conservatives wait to make political points about immigration after somebody gets killed by an immigrant? How long do they wait to make political points after somebody gets shot during a robbery about how police need more support? If a bridge collapses on a bunch of people, isn't it kind of natural to start talking about bridge safety, and having more inspections, and more investment in infrastructure? We don't usually wait quietly during mourning period to demand answers on how such a thing could have happened.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: rightleft22 on May 25, 2022, 10:38:37 AM
Quote
Meanwhile, all the conservatives are mad at Joe Biden for making political points after "the tragedy"
same old play book and enough hypocrisy to go around for everyone.

If those who say they really want to see changes to gun, abortion laws.... they say they actually care about, voted that way things might change. But they don't and wont. Just watch what happens in the mid terms.

If fingers have to be pointed I point it at the progressives who seem to have ADD - concerned about everything (mostly saying the 'right' things) while doing nothing. Look squirrel... lets get upset about that next thing.   
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: TheDrake on May 25, 2022, 10:59:00 AM
Maybe we should just follow the Texas workaround to Constitutionality. Make it possible for private citizens to sue anyone who helps a mass shooter commit that crime. The Uber driver that dropped them off, the guy who sold them the gun, the ammo, anyone who instructed them how to use the gun, anyone giving advice on how to aim it...
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: msquared on May 25, 2022, 11:01:40 AM
the victims for not being armed themselves.  I mean how irresponsible can they be?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: yossarian22c on May 25, 2022, 01:40:17 PM
Maybe we should just follow the Texas workaround to Constitutionality. Make it possible for private citizens to sue anyone who helps a mass shooter commit that crime. The Uber driver that dropped them off, the guy who sold them the gun, the ammo, anyone who instructed them how to use the gun, anyone giving advice on how to aim it...

Maybe some state needs to pass a horrendous law like that to get the Supreme Court off their ass in striking down end runs around the constitution.

My position is again. No AR-15's (or similar semi-automatic high capacity, high power rifles). The death totals are way higher using that type of rifle than someone using handguns. Doubt the current supreme court would allow such restrictions. Maybe just let everyone mount 50 cals to their cars and trucks. Right to keep and bear arms. Who cares if our streets start seeing gun fights like we're in a war zone, gun rights shall not be infringed. Ignore that militia part.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: TheDrake on May 25, 2022, 01:45:23 PM
OH yeah, I was right. Breitbart is having their take on it. Blaming the shooter's assumed status as an "anchor baby".

Voted up 80 times:

Quote
The overwhelming majority of mass shootings are done by brown people in this country.

And the browner it gets, the more mass shootings we will experience

The very first comment on that site, upvoted 662 times:

Quote
They will quickly bury this story because the perp is not a white dude.

God only knows what's happening on newsmax and oan, BB is my limit on how much I can tolerate without puking.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Ouija Nightmare on May 25, 2022, 02:25:00 PM
Maybe we should just follow the Texas workaround to Constitutionality. Make it possible for private citizens to sue anyone who helps a mass shooter commit that crime. The Uber driver that dropped them off, the guy who sold them the gun, the ammo, anyone who instructed them how to use the gun, anyone giving advice on how to aim it...

Maybe some state needs to pass a horrendous law like that to get the Supreme Court off their ass in striking down end runs around the constitution.

My position is again. No AR-15's (or similar semi-automatic high capacity, high power rifles). The death totals are way higher using that type of rifle than someone using handguns. Doubt the current supreme court would allow such restrictions. Maybe just let everyone mount 50 cals to their cars and trucks. Right to keep and bear arms. Who cares if our streets start seeing gun fights like we're in a war zone, gun rights shall not be infringed. Ignore that militia part.


Just have a few peaceful protests outside Supreme Court homes say ten thousand well armed people holding a torchlit vigil. Laws will change.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: yossarian22c on May 25, 2022, 02:27:59 PM
Maybe we should just follow the Texas workaround to Constitutionality. Make it possible for private citizens to sue anyone who helps a mass shooter commit that crime. The Uber driver that dropped them off, the guy who sold them the gun, the ammo, anyone who instructed them how to use the gun, anyone giving advice on how to aim it...

Maybe some state needs to pass a horrendous law like that to get the Supreme Court off their ass in striking down end runs around the constitution.

My position is again. No AR-15's (or similar semi-automatic high capacity, high power rifles). The death totals are way higher using that type of rifle than someone using handguns. Doubt the current supreme court would allow such restrictions. Maybe just let everyone mount 50 cals to their cars and trucks. Right to keep and bear arms. Who cares if our streets start seeing gun fights like we're in a war zone, gun rights shall not be infringed. Ignore that militia part.


Just have a few peaceful protests outside Supreme Court homes say ten thousand well armed people holding a torchlit vigil. Laws will change.

The laws will change but probably not in the way you want. Laws to ban the speech or bearing arms around the justices but nothing for the rest of us.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Ouija Nightmare on May 25, 2022, 02:29:37 PM
Maybe we should just follow the Texas workaround to Constitutionality. Make it possible for private citizens to sue anyone who helps a mass shooter commit that crime. The Uber driver that dropped them off, the guy who sold them the gun, the ammo, anyone who instructed them how to use the gun, anyone giving advice on how to aim it...

Maybe some state needs to pass a horrendous law like that to get the Supreme Court off their ass in striking down end runs around the constitution.

My position is again. No AR-15's (or similar semi-automatic high capacity, high power rifles). The death totals are way higher using that type of rifle than someone using handguns. Doubt the current supreme court would allow such restrictions. Maybe just let everyone mount 50 cals to their cars and trucks. Right to keep and bear arms. Who cares if our streets start seeing gun fights like we're in a war zone, gun rights shall not be infringed. Ignore that militia part.


Just have a few peaceful protests outside Supreme Court homes say ten thousand well armed people holding a torchlit vigil. Laws will change.

The laws will change but probably not in the way you want. Laws to ban the speech or bearing arms around the justices but nothing for the rest of us.

Indeed. Some pigs are more equal than others.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: cherrypoptart on May 25, 2022, 06:06:51 PM
Hypothetically, what if this were happening two or three times a week? Or every day? Or two or three times a day? Mass shootings including in elementary schools?

And what if most of the shootings were being committed by people with no criminal records who bought their guns legally?

Just wondering where the tipping point is at which point the right to bear arms is overwhelmed by the inability to stop these types of mass shootings.

And what is the law Democrats propose to change this, the law that will stop it?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Wayward Son on May 25, 2022, 06:31:31 PM
We're not going to stop it.

But we can make it more difficult.  We can make it less convenient.  We can slow them down, maybe give police a chance to notice that something is wrong with the situation and maybe, sometimes, take their guns away before they can use them or buy them.

Which means we can stop some of them.

What laws do Republicans support that will make it more difficult for these killers to get their hands on these deadly guns?

Because for the last decade, they have opposed every attempt to limit killers' ability to get guns legally.

I look forward to hearing your ideas.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: cherrypoptart on May 25, 2022, 07:36:12 PM
Like with most of the Democrats' new laws, my suggestion wouldn't help a case like this where a person with no criminal record goes berserk and intends to die, but if we're talking about people getting shot and shot to death in general, I'd suggest laws, and they'd have to be state laws, (or a Constitutional Amendment that may have to clarify the 8th) that anyone convicted of using a firearm in the commission of a crime is sentenced to life in prison without parole, yes even for the first offense. That would mean someone like George Floyd wouldn't have gotten out of prison after only five years when convicted of being in a home invasion crew who pointed a gun at a pregnant woman's womb. Maybe he'd still be alive. But at least that would show that Democrats are serious about preventing the crimes that gun rights people feel the government won't stop from happening to them so they need to defend themselves. Before Republicans can take Democrats seriously regarding gun control, we need much more effective criminal control.

Of course, that would just be a starting point. Self defense against criminals is only one purpose for the 2nd Amendment, and not the primary one. But it would be a start. And again, it wouldn't have prevented this attack, but it would save a lot of other people from getting shot to death by repeat offenders who are caught and released over and over again in the revolving door of our so called criminal justice system. But anyway, that's my suggestion.

Tougher justice. If we're looking for some deterrents, I'm also up for Singapore style caning for the ones who don't die in their shootout with the police, like the punk in Buffalo. Life in prison with no parole and at certain intervals a humiliating public caning. If that's too harsh, then maybe just a firm whiffle paddling from the prison warden no harsher than little kids used to get in elementary school for sticking gum under the desk if the left is too squeamish for the Singapore cane. The point is, whatever deterrent effect our prison system is supposed to be having, it's obviously not enough. Hard labor should be back on the table too.

The main point is the left always wants to punish the innocent by making them helpless against criminals instead of protecting the innocent by keeping those proven violent criminals off the streets and seriously deterring the wannabes. And nothing against rehabilitation. Go ahead and rehabilitate them. Then after they are deemed no longer a threat to the public and it's safe to release them, keep them in prison for the rest of their lives anyway. And have them work hard so it's not just a total drain on the taxpayers.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: yossarian22c on May 25, 2022, 09:18:01 PM
Not sure how locking people up for life for carrying while driving under the influence makes us safer. All that law does is exacerbate our leading in prison population per capita. It would cause more people to be willing to kill everyone, armed robbery and murder have the same punishment in your world. No reason to leave any witnesses behind. People usually aren’t thinking about the consequences when they commit a crime, 10 years or life in prison doesn’t change the calculus that much because they are expecting to get away with it. It would make carrying a weapon much more legally risky. Accidentally shop lift while legally carrying a weapon. Instead of probation, life in prison. This does almost nothing to reduce crime while coming with a huge price tag monetarily and societally.

I’ve posted my idea for reducing the deaths in these situations. No assault rifles. Compare the outcome of the NY subway shooter to mass shootings involving AR-15s. You can have, pistols, shotguns, and hunting rifles. Just get rid of the mass murder weapons.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: cherrypoptart on May 25, 2022, 09:43:13 PM
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm talking about locking people up for life for violent gun crimes.

So that wouldn't include the dummy who forgets to take his gun out of his luggage at the airport. Or who had a child get ahold of a gun they didn't properly secure. Those crimes could have the same punishment they have now.

I'm talking about people who use a gun, whether or not it's fired, in the commission of a violent crime.

If you want to throw violent knife crimes in there too then I wouldn't mind, but not throwing it in wouldn't be a deal breaker if guns are the main thing concerning people. It wouldn't affect a crime like this one, but it would at least show we're serious about gun crimes and you could count on Republicans to get on board for that.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: rightleft22 on May 26, 2022, 09:21:10 AM
I think poisoners, epically those locked up forever, should be allowed to exercise their right to own guns.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: yossarian22c on May 26, 2022, 09:50:12 AM
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm talking about locking people up for life for violent gun crimes.

So that wouldn't include the dummy who forgets to take his gun out of his luggage at the airport. Or who had a child get ahold of a gun they didn't properly secure. Those crimes could have the same punishment they have now.

I'm talking about people who use a gun, whether or not it's fired, in the commission of a violent crime.
...

So much more limited. How about the Republican candidate for Senate from Georgia? Lock him up forever? He pointed a gun at his ex-wife's head.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: NobleHunter on May 26, 2022, 10:15:25 AM
Though making certain types of guns less available may not have helped in this case since the cops let the shooter barricade himself in a room with his victims and then sat on their hands for most of an hour.

So much for the "good guy with a gun" solution.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: yossarian22c on May 26, 2022, 10:39:08 AM
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/26/1101434831/public-camping-felony-tennessee-homeless-seek-refuge (https://www.npr.org/2022/05/26/1101434831/public-camping-felony-tennessee-homeless-seek-refuge)

Quote
Tennessee is about to become the first U.S. state to make it a felony to camp on local public property such as parks.
...
Tennessee already made it a felony in 2020 to camp on most state-owned property.

How about camping on public lands with a gun? Felony. Is that violent trespass in your book? Lock people up for life being homeless and armed?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: yossarian22c on May 26, 2022, 10:43:38 AM
Though making certain types of guns less available may not have helped in this case since the cops let the shooter barricade himself in a room with his victims and then sat on their hands for most of an hour.

So much for the "good guy with a gun" solution.

Maybe banning AR's doesn't help in this one case but from looking at death tolls of mass shootings over the last several years it seems like it would help in most cases. Or maybe the cops wouldn't have been as reluctant to engage in a shootout with someone who didn't outgun them. There is no feasible law or action that 100% prevents all of these. Only laws that make them slightly more rare with fewer deaths.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: msquared on May 26, 2022, 10:55:41 AM
Remember most conservatives are now black and white view point people. If you are not able to get rid of school shooting totally, then do nothing. You have to end all abortion.  You have to eliminate all fraud from elections. There is no grey area or working towards a goal. Their way 100% or you are un American.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: ScottF on May 26, 2022, 10:57:38 AM
#banAR15 is as generically useless as #thoughtsandprayers

The AR happens to be one of the most popular semi-auto rifles, but "banning ARs" wouldn't do anything. Banning semi-automatic rifles would first need a clear definition of what semi-automatic means, and I've never seen anyone knowledgeable actually attempt to do this.

Anyone proposing laws or regulations that clearly wouldn't prevent these kinds of shooting incidents - or worse, spouting "stricter gun laws" (as if that means anything) isn't part of an adult conversation.

The US has a unique multi-variate problem. Lots of guns, tons of mind-altering meds being prescribed to children early and often, and dysfunctional social media acting like a magnifier. Those three elements have created thousands of bombs waiting to blow.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: ScottF on May 26, 2022, 11:02:54 AM
Remember most conservatives are now black and white view point people. If you are not able to get rid of school shooting totally, then do nothing. You have to end all abortion.  You have to eliminate all fraud from elections. There is no grey area or working towards a goal. Their way 100% or you are un American.

The irony of you accusing "most" conservatives of holding non-absolute points of view is kind of funny.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: yossarian22c on May 26, 2022, 11:04:07 AM
Semi-automatic is a well defined gun property. You can also regulate magazine capacity. 
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: NobleHunter on May 26, 2022, 11:25:06 AM
The AR happens to be one of the most popular semi-auto rifles, but "banning ARs" wouldn't do anything. Banning semi-automatic rifles would first need a clear definition of what semi-automatic means, and I've never seen anyone knowledgeable actually attempt to do this.

I'm curious about how semi-automatic can be unclear. I mean, the old "assault weapon" definition seemed to be more concerned with appearance than lethality and one could argue about what exactly counts as an "assault rifle" but semi-automatic is pretty straightforward.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Wayward Son on May 26, 2022, 11:36:21 AM
What you are probably thinking of, Scott, is assault rifles, which is a somewhat nebulous category.

But they are also the rifles of choice for those who fantasize that they are "killing machines." :( Just look at how many AR-15 and similar guns are used in these mass-slaughter attacks.

I would propose banning any gun that reasonably resembles a military-style assault gun.  I don't think it would be that difficult to define (handles on the top for carrying, large magazines, barrel-coolers, etc.--we had such a definition in the old legislation).  If a few border-line cases slip through, it is no big deal.  We're just trying to take the military/macho aura out of civilian guns.

I might even allow military-style guns if they were painted pink with daisies and cute little cartoon animals.  Just imagine someone pretending he is Rambo with one of those. :)

The good thing about this is that it would not infringe on any right to bear arms.  As we have been told repeatedly, assault rifles are not different than any other semi-automatic rifle.  So, anyone who wants such a rifle can buy any of those other rifles, just not assault rifles.

How it would help is to take away one part of the sick fantasy of being killing machine that can slaughter at will.  Perhaps eliminating that small part could prevent a few mass shootings.  A small price to pay for saving innocent lives.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: JoshuaD on May 26, 2022, 03:49:38 PM
It's crazy that we let this go on. Something must be done.

As I've been saying for a while, we need to close public schools. They are a vehicle for the spread of many horrible ideas to our children, public school teachers sexually abuse students under their care, in many states parents are forced to send their kids there, and now they are becoming shooting galleries for the deranged.

Close public schools; problems solved.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Fenring on May 26, 2022, 03:51:49 PM
As I've been saying for a while, we need to close public schools.

Do you mean to only have private (i.e. privately funded) schools? Or do you mean smaller school groups in local communities? It strikes me that in theory if someone wanted to shoot up a group of people they would just seek out the largest group available, no? If that wasn't a public school wouldn't it be a private school, or the next best thing?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: msquared on May 26, 2022, 04:01:16 PM
We should close grocery stores and McDonalds as well. I mean there have been mass shootings at those locations as well.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: TheDrake on May 26, 2022, 04:37:35 PM
And nightclubs. Concerts. Churches.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: JoshuaD on May 26, 2022, 05:50:34 PM
People aren't taxed and then forced to send their kids to get food at McDonalds, or taxed and then forced to go to a nightclub. I cook for my family and I have my budget that can afford it. Sure, a guy can break into my house and do something horrible, but at least it won't be a cafeteria where 500 families are forced to eat every day.

Close the schools and you solve the biggest problem against our most vulnerable. And you do other good for our society as well.

We have to do something. This would help a lot. If someone opposes this, doesn't that mean that they're hateful or selfish or callous or something? This would help save lives. I thought in times like this we're not allowed to think about anything but the tragedy at hand.

Or is that only true when the person in question is opposed to gun control?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: rightleft22 on May 26, 2022, 05:55:25 PM
Quote
Close public schools; problems solved.
This argument is actually gaining popularity for the overall movement where conservatism = going back in time to when Men were Men and Woman were Woman and Government was managed by the Few who know what's good for everyone. Only those making such arguments - close public schools - wont say that and or don't realize that that is what they are calling for when the make such arguments.

Close all public schools = screw the poor.  Back to the good old days of feudalism.
Equality, as in everyone has a equal chance to the pursuit of happiness, starts with equal access to good nutrition and education.  But yeah lets go back in time when things were so much better for everyone.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Fenring on May 26, 2022, 06:00:16 PM
Close all public schools = screw the poor.  Back to the good old days of feudalism.

Not sure what I think about closing public schools, but it's funny you should say this now when the middle class has been under attack for quite a while. Nutrition/science is obviously better, as are supply chains, but honestly this is a tech development rather than a social one. I think there's an argument to be made that we're more feudal now than we were 50 years ago.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Wayward Son on May 26, 2022, 06:33:34 PM
So now it's guns don't kill people; schools kill people?  ;D

Schools do a lot of good for individuals and society.  An educated populace is a productive populace.  An educated electorate makes better decisions than an uneducated electorate.  Do you think we reached this level of technology and prosperity without an educated workforce and advancing the best and the brightest from all our population?

An interesting solution--stop all school shootings by eliminating all schools--but that is like stopping all headaches by cutting off all heads.  It's a solution that's worse than the problem, and doesn't really address the root cause of the problem.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: yossarian22c on May 26, 2022, 07:24:29 PM
Was the school thing a serious proposition? Satire of the right is hard to spot in the age of trump.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Fenring on May 26, 2022, 09:28:07 PM
Schools do a lot of good for individuals and society.  An educated populace is a productive populace.  An educated electorate makes better decisions than an uneducated electorate.  Do you think we reached this level of technology and prosperity without an educated workforce and advancing the best and the brightest from all our population?

I don't personally think much education happens in schools in the technical sense. I think if I had to assign rankings to the most important functions of elementary and high school it would be:

1) Day care - keep the kids away from the parents
2) Socialization
3) Obedience training (#2 and #3 are arguably in the wrong order here)
4) Learning basic intellectual skills, e.g. math etc.

#4 is the lesser of these by far IMO, as most high school knowledge could be learned in a very short time compared with the sheer hours spent in classes over 12 years. Not that they learn nothing, but aside from preliminary math which is useful even as a teen, I don't think that much knowledge or technical skill is imparted in high school for instance. That being said I would not want to underestimate how important the socialization element is, so getting rid of that would have an effect. Home school groups are an option but probably lose out on #1, the most important reason of them all in a household with two working parents (or a single parent who works).
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: cherrypoptart on May 27, 2022, 07:32:36 AM
yossarian22c

"So much more limited. How about the Republican candidate for Senate from Georgia? Lock him up forever? He pointed a gun at his ex-wife's head."

It would depend on the details but assuming it wasn't self defense then yes. Why not? We are way too soft on crime. Nobody can take Democrats seriously on gun control while they are simultaneously, constantly, letting very dangerous criminals out of prison.

If Democrats were serious about amending the Constitution to get the gun laws they really want, part of the discussion and in the end the great compromise would be keeping people who have proven themselves dangerous locked up for good. Of course that doesn't do anything to address the main point of the 2nd Amendment which is to facilitate a successful revolution against a tyrannical government, but if you showed people that our society was safe, then a lot more of them would be willing to consider giving up their ability to defend themselves. I'm not promising I would, not yet, but I can promise most people won't even consider it with the crime rate we have today.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: cherrypoptart on May 27, 2022, 09:02:51 AM
I see the catch 22 there too. Can't give up guns for self defense with this high crime rate and can't get the crime rate down with all of these guns. So if there is no way to get the crime rate down while still having all those guns out there then we're stuck because the political support for making people helpless against violent criminals, whether the criminal has a gun or a knife or bare hands, will never happen.

I don't know if it's really true or not, but supposedly some of the countries that did end up with gun bans like Australia ended up with more violent crime afterwards as thugs had nothing to be afraid of from their potential victims.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: yossarian22c on May 27, 2022, 09:33:18 AM
I see the catch 22 there too. Can't give up guns for self defense with this high crime rate and can't get the crime rate down with all of these guns. So if there is no way to get the crime rate down while still having all those guns out there then we're stuck because the political support for making people helpless against violent criminals, whether the criminal has a gun or a knife or bare hands, will never happen.

I don't know if it's really true or not, but supposedly some of the countries that did end up with gun bans like Australia ended up with more violent crime afterwards as thugs had nothing to be afraid of from their potential victims.

Not really true.

https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/recorded-crime-victims/2020 (https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/recorded-crime-victims/2020)

Sexual assaults are up, but there are lots of sociological factors that may have increased willingness to report over the years. Robberies, thefts, physical assaults are all down over the last decade.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: TheDrake on May 27, 2022, 09:35:34 AM
Are you helpless against criminals if you can't get your hands on a semi-automatic long gun? Yes, it is possible to find anecdotes where a homeowner happened to defend themselves against multiple intruders using an AR-15. It is unclear if the people in question would have been less successful defending themselves with a semi-automatic pistol, or a shotgun.

AR-15s are good at killing a lot of people all at once. Perfect for mass killers, drug dealers, gang members. Rarely a needed capability for home defense, and utterly useless defending oneself against a criminal in open ground.

There are so many problems with the lock them up forever rule - which we sort of tried with 3 strikes rules. This is a 1 strike rule, and I doubt it would be more effective in creating the civil utopia with all the bad people put in prison forever. Among other things, every case would go to trial because there would be no more plea bargains. I don't know where you're going to get your lawyers from for that, or did you just want to get an amendment to due process?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: yossarian22c on May 27, 2022, 09:37:54 AM
yossarian22c

"So much more limited. How about the Republican candidate for Senate from Georgia? Lock him up forever? He pointed a gun at his ex-wife's head."

It would depend on the details but assuming it wasn't self defense then yes. Why not? ...

Well apparently close to half the state of Georgia, including all the tough on crime Republicans, seem to think he should be spending his time in the Senate instead of prison.

But those types of mandatory minimums wouldn't make us safer. Let me ask you a question, you go to your local bank with your family, man walks in with a gun to rob it, would you rather he get the same prison sentence for leaving everyone dead as everyone alive?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Wayward Son on May 27, 2022, 12:10:14 PM
One other minor problem with cherry's idea is that it deals with the problem after the fact rather than before the fact.  It punishes crime, rather than prevents it.

Punishment will prevent many crimes, but as we've seen over the years, it does not prevent most of it.  And it certainly does nothing to mitigate the effects of the crime once it has happened.

Making it more difficult for criminals and crazies to get their hands on guns prevents some crime from happening.  Which means it prevents the effects of those crimes, especially the ones where the criminal either thinks he will get away with it or doesn't care what happens to him.  A double-win.

Now, there is no reason why we can't have some gun reform--enhanced background checks, gun licensing, gun safety training, required insurance for gun ownership--in addition to enhance penalties for using a gun in a crime.  Attacking crime from both sides--prevention and punishment--would do much more in reducing crime than just punishment.  Especially since punishment has not been terribly effective in the past.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: TheDrake on May 27, 2022, 12:23:47 PM
I don't think he made the argument that punishment would prevent all crimes, rather that if we prevented repeat crimes, then people would be willing to give up their assault rifles?

Making fewer nonviolent transactions crimes could make more room in the prisons for actually dangerous people, that would be a start. It would also make fewer people dangerous - not many people driving trucks full of tobacco are as heavily armed as people transporting narcotics.

Some people return to crime because of the mark of stigma that keeps ex-felons from getting jobs to pay the bills. We could fix that too.

We could give our population universal access to counseling and mood stabilizing medications at no cost to the individual as well.

But those solutions wouldn't be "hard on crime", so no support from the righteous right who must smite with might! They'd rather spend $10 on incarceration than $1 on prevention.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: cherrypoptart on May 28, 2022, 05:14:02 PM
We still haven't come to the law that needs to be passed that would have prevented this school shooting.

Until now.

"A Supreme Court justice’s solution to gun violence: Repeal Second Amendment"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-supreme-court-justice-e2-80-99s-solution-to-gun-violence-repeal-second-amendment/ar-AAXPhQV

"Stevens’s op-ed came just a few years after he issued a proposal to amend the Second Amendment, in his book “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution,” which was excerpted in a 2014 Washington Post opinion piece. Stevens suggested adding five words (in italics below) to the amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”

-------------------------------------------------------

I do have one question about that. So let's say that passed. Who then would be eligible to own a gun? Carry it around in public like to the supermarket? Who is the Militia?

But at least that's something that might have prevented this shooting. I haven't seen any other proposals. Sure take away the assault weapons which could make a difference in many shootings but that wouldn't have stopped this shooting since it could have been done with just about any gun.

Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Fenring on May 29, 2022, 12:22:05 AM
Wouldn't outlawing militias be a simple way to ban guns if guns were relegated only to militias? Especially because the clause "being necessary to the security of a free State" appears to be moot at this point anyhow. Technically that clause seems to merely imply that one expects militias to always be around, hence they need to be armed. I suppose its phrasing didn't consider the possibility that they might become irrelevant.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: NobleHunter on May 29, 2022, 10:30:12 AM
The federal government can't abolish the militias. Though they may be able to screw around with standards enough to make them untenable. I'm sure someone with more interest in constitutional minutia could clear it up. They were probably aware that militias could become irrelevant but I think there was disagreement on how much effort should be expended on trying to prevent it.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Fenring on May 29, 2022, 12:17:54 PM
The federal government can't abolish the militias.

It also depends on how one defines militia. For instance if a group of concerned citizens (i.e. a militia) takes up arms to fight off a landed invasion in their state from overseas, I guess in a manner of speaking you don't want to make it illegal to do that. Practically speaking you can't make it illegal because in the very circumstance where such a defense is needed I imagine it already means the military is at its limit in terms of how much it's doing already. But if by militia one means "private military force" in the sense of taking positive action against enemies of the U.S., then I'm pretty sure it would be pretty easy to ban a militia group from, for example, going to war with a foreign country on their soil 'in defense of America'. It has become commonly accepted political doctrine at this point that 'defense of America' absolutely includes invading foreign countries, but a militia would certainly not enjoy the privilege of being able to defend America in this fashion on their own accord.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: msquared on May 29, 2022, 12:21:37 PM
Cherry

Are you a Christian?  If so how do you square those ideas with the teachings of Jesus about forgiveness and redemption?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: NobleHunter on May 29, 2022, 04:55:07 PM
It also depends on how one defines militia. For instance if a group of concerned citizens (i.e. a militia) takes up arms to fight off a landed invasion in their state from overseas, I guess in a manner of speaking you don't want to make it illegal to do that. Practically speaking you can't make it illegal because in the very circumstance where such a defense is needed I imagine it already means the military is at its limit in terms of how much it's doing already. But if by militia one means "private military force" in the sense of taking positive action against enemies of the U.S., then I'm pretty sure it would be pretty easy to ban a militia group from, for example, going to war with a foreign country on their soil 'in defense of America'. It has become commonly accepted political doctrine at this point that 'defense of America' absolutely includes invading foreign countries, but a militia would certainly not enjoy the privilege of being able to defend America in this fashion on their own accord.

The Constitution is pretty clear what kind of militias it's talking about. It would be egregious even by the current court's standards to read it to mean a group operating independently of a state.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Fenring on May 29, 2022, 04:58:48 PM
The Constitution is pretty clear what kind of militias it's talking about. It would be egregious even by the current court's standards to read it to mean a group operating independently of a state.

But that's sort of what I mean. Are the current militia groups operated by the states?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: NobleHunter on May 29, 2022, 05:05:24 PM
Yes and no. I think the state militias got folded into the National Guard and so aren't as independent at they used to be. I don't know if the states can still martial a completely separate body of troops, though they would be ill-prepared to do so.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Fenring on May 29, 2022, 05:13:35 PM
Yes and no. I think the state militias got folded into the National Guard and so aren't as independent at they used to be. I don't know if the states can still martial a completely separate body of troops, though they would be ill-prepared to do so.

So I took a militia group at random from a Wiki list of them, one which has its own entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Militia

This kind of group is hooked up with the National Guard??
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: NobleHunter on May 29, 2022, 05:22:34 PM
No, you'll note they aren't run by the State of Michigan.

While there are groups that call themselves a militia, they're just aping the form (or more charitably applying a different definition) in order to sound legitimate.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Fenring on May 29, 2022, 06:16:21 PM
No, you'll note they aren't run by the State of Michigan.

While there are groups that call themselves a militia, they're just aping the form (or more charitably applying a different definition) in order to sound legitimate.

Do you have a link or reference to a 'real militia' in the sense you mean it?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: cherrypoptart on May 30, 2022, 12:05:34 AM


"Are you a Christian?  If so how do you square those ideas with the teachings of Jesus about forgiveness and redemption?"

What ideas? Like the idea that we should protect innocent children from the people who prey on them?

And do we do that now?

I would say that the recidivism rate proves that we don't. You can't have recidivism without new innocent victims and allowing it to happen is a failure of our society. I'm pretty sure Jesus would be all in favor of protecting children.

That should include not just the ones who are specifically targeted but also the ones who get caught in gang war crossfires.

I don't see how keeping dangerous criminals in prison is anti-Christian.

The corporal punishment part? Yeah, I suppose Jesus wouldn't be in favor of that so much. If you go far enough though, it's possible he wouldn't be in favor of any punishment at all. Does turn the other cheek mean that if one of your children is raped, you let the guy rape your other children too? If that's what it means then I'm afraid I'd have to pass.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: LetterRip on May 30, 2022, 01:53:39 AM
What ideas? Like the idea that we should protect innocent children from the people who prey on them?

And do we do that now?

Way better than any point in history, probably 1000 times better than in Christ's time.  Any child not of wealthy parents had a high chance of being murdered, raped, starved, beaten, etc.  It was quite common practice to leave unwanted infants out to die of exposure.  Child sacrifice was done in Carthage.  It used to be common to do ritual sacrifice of children and slaves for laying of foundation stones and to 'appease the Gods' for weather.

Also drastically better than even fairly recent history - 60's, 70's, 80's - child abuse and neglect is taken very seriously these, days, but it was largely ignored for most of US history. We could do better, but we are far and away better than at any point in history, we are relatively close to perfection relative to say the norms during the time of Christ.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Fenring on May 30, 2022, 08:49:45 AM


"Are you a Christian?  If so how do you square those ideas with the teachings of Jesus about forgiveness and redemption?"

What ideas? Like the idea that we should protect innocent children from the people who prey on them?

The NT does not make mention afaik of the importance of protecting the innocent from criminals. If that's a virtue it's not one mentioned by Jesus.

However to be fair the teachings in the NT are oriented toward small communities rather than over-arching nations governing large groupings of peoples. The NT doesn't include the equivalent of the Mosaic laws, dictating how to actually run a society.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: TheDrake on May 30, 2022, 09:43:27 AM
Choosing what to do should be evidence based of course.  You wouldn't let a serial killer out because he repented. But we also should question whether we want a life sentence for,  well everything. Any offense can recur.  We could lock up all the drunk drivers for life also, because they kill kids. Pretty soon you'll wall off major cities like New York.  The new Australia banishment for everyone committing a potentially deadly act.  And since some domestic abusers often escalate to deadly violence, one punch should put them away. Yes, we should have follow up. We should give more support to prevent recidivism. We should spend more money on more and better parole officers. A solution of maximum harm prevention will break down. You have to accept some repeat offense in order to allow others the opportunity to contribute to society. Even just based on economics.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: cherrypoptart on May 30, 2022, 10:35:22 AM
While I agree that not every criminal should be given a life without parole sentence, assuming that if more violent criminals were given life without parole, that we would have to fill the prisons to bursting with such criminals kind of misses the point. If the punishments were harsher then presumably there would be fewer people committing those crimes. For drunk drivers instead of life in prison perhaps a permanent loss of driving privileges would be more reasonable, and better for the environment too. It could be after the first offense, but not necessarily. Maybe after the second or third. Same with longer prison sentences and life sentences, just like the three strikes and you're out laws that reduced crime. And I understand the internet says the laws were ineffective but I'm not buying it because it makes no sense. If you've got someone that is repeatedly committing violent crimes then for at least the period of time that they stay in prison the community is safe from them. If they are released and commit more crime after that then it pretty much proves that it was better they were kept in prison and that for a while there at least, innocent people were safe from them.

Y'all talk about all these other ways to reduce crime and sure go for all of that. It's not either or but all of the above. But some people just can't be saved so it's more important to try to save victims from them instead of giving the already guilty the benefit of the doubt anymore when we know in the aggregate innocent people are going to be the ones who get punished.

None of that really applies to the latest school shooting though. However, it might have applied to the Parkland shooting where apparently that guy was given the light handed treatment that is being recommended and when it didn't work a bunch of innocent kids paid the ultimate price. What about their day in court? Their justice? The people against being tough on crime gave innocent kids a death sentence.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: TheDrake on May 30, 2022, 11:48:22 AM
That's the problem with using intuition rather than actual data. It makes sense to us that the harsher a penalty is, the more people will be deterred, but the data won't support it. That's not "the internet" it is virtually every academic study my criminology,  psychology, and sociology. Just allowing doctors to talk to parents about the risk of guns in the home would be a nice start, and costs nothing.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: cherrypoptart on May 30, 2022, 12:53:58 PM
There's no possible way to know about deterrence.

All we know for sure is that while they are in prison they can't commit crimes.

I can see the point though in medium prison sentences acting to harden criminals instead of reforming them. Maybe you do the scared straight thing, or catch a young criminal and give him another chance instead of throwing him into hell and turning him into a demon.

But there are some violent criminals that just never need to be set loose again. The safest thing for innocent people is to keep what Hillary Clinton called the "super predators" locked up. Just so it's not racist, I'd count pedophiles amongst them and a lot of those guys are white. I mean we're worried about the children, right? And yet you can find all the pedophiles on the publicly available online maps who were caught, convicted, and then released easily enough, distributed throughout the country through all of our neighborhoods. Are we only worried about the kids when they get shot but not so much when they get raped? Frankly, just gonna be honest here, our society is kind of pathetic. We say that we care but our actions tell the truth about how little.

Anyways, here's Hillary laying it out. Isn't she the person the Democrats wanted to be our President?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0uCrA7ePno
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: msquared on May 30, 2022, 01:15:10 PM
Prisoners can't commit crimes?  Are you sure about that?  Oh, you mean against regular people.  It is just fine if they do things to other inmates and guards.  I guess solitary 24/7 is the only answer.

And I see you are not able to answer a direct question.

Are you one of those evangelicals who prefer Revelations and the Old Testament to the teachings of Jesus, since his teaching are harder to follow? I know how much easier an Eye for an Eye is than Love your neighbor.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Fenring on May 30, 2022, 02:18:44 PM
I don't see what any of this has to do with the case of a teenager's first and last hurrah with crime being the shooting up of a school. Unless we're talking about repeat offenders of school shootings then I'm not sure what the point is...
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: cherrypoptart on May 30, 2022, 08:35:50 PM
The point is being concerned about people dying because of gun violence in general.

It's true though that there's nothing proposed so far that would stop someone with no criminal record from legally purchasing guns, or murdering his mother first and stealing her gun as happened in Sandy Hook, and then attacking children in a school.

The only proposal might be a total gun ban and then the point is to convince enough of the public that that's in their best interest the crime rate would have to come down a heckuva lot first, whether that's by being tough on crime or by being lenient on crime it's the results that matter.

As for religion, yeah okay I'm dodging the question as I honestly I haven't exactly worked it all out myself yet. I'll admit that I don't go to church so I don't have anyone I rely on to pin it all down for me. I lean to a lot of what Christianity preaches to have merit to it but one of the main no-no's is that you aren't supposed to kill yourself or even hurt yourself. I'd say that suicide by cop is not a valid work-around and by extension being so lenient with violent criminals that suicide and self-harm by purposefully allowed violent crime becomes more and more likely is also not acceptable, nor is allowing innocent people to be hurt and killed. Huge rationalization there perhaps but as I noted I'm working through it.

As for prison, I'm all for prison reform to make it less expensive and safer.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Fenring on May 30, 2022, 08:45:25 PM
The point is being concerned about people dying because of gun violence in general.

It's true though that there's nothing proposed so far that would stop someone with no criminal record from legally purchasing guns, or murdering his mother first and stealing her gun as happened in Sandy Hook, and then attacking children in a school.

The only proposal might be a total gun ban and then the point is to convince enough of the public that that's in their best interest the crime rate would have to come down a heckuva lot first, whether that's by being tough on crime or by being lenient on crime it's the results that matter.

As for religion, yeah okay I'm dodging the question as I honestly I haven't exactly worked it all out myself yet. I'll admit that I don't go to church so I don't have anyone I rely on to pin it all down for me. I lean to a lot of what Christianity preaches to have merit to it but one of the main no-no's is that you aren't supposed to kill yourself or even hurt yourself.

To be honest I don't think anyone has worked it out yet. Individuals sometimes have hard opinions, but large-scale organizations, even with centuries or more behind them, seem to still be debating the issue, e.g. just war theory, when killing or taking up arms is ok, preventative violence, etc. These are really hard things. I think the main issue brought up just now which does seem a bit contradictory to the Christian spirit is extreme punishment purely as a preventative measure, and also the concept of using one person's suffering as a means of controlling other people. Using a person as a means to an end would be against the spirit of several religions.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: rightleft22 on May 31, 2022, 10:57:22 AM
27th school shooting this year...

When can we stop pretending?  Same stories, same augments spun out till we get to forget till the next one. 
Maybe the media should just stop covering such stories and let us pretend in peace.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: TheDrake on May 31, 2022, 12:02:16 PM
There's no possible way to know about deterrence.

All we know for sure is that while they are in prison they can't commit crimes.

I can see the point though in medium prison sentences acting to harden criminals instead of reforming them. Maybe you do the scared straight thing, or catch a young criminal and give him another chance instead of throwing him into hell and turning him into a demon.

But there are some violent criminals that just never need to be set loose again. The safest thing for innocent people is to keep what Hillary Clinton called the "super predators" locked up. Just so it's not racist, I'd count pedophiles amongst them and a lot of those guys are white. I mean we're worried about the children, right? And yet you can find all the pedophiles on the publicly available online maps who were caught, convicted, and then released easily enough, distributed throughout the country through all of our neighborhoods. Are we only worried about the kids when they get shot but not so much when they get raped? Frankly, just gonna be honest here, our society is kind of pathetic. We say that we care but our actions tell the truth about how little.

Anyways, here's Hillary laying it out. Isn't she the person the Democrats wanted to be our President?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0uCrA7ePno

You know that some of the people in that database were only a couple years older than their statutory victim right? Some of them got a sex crime designation for urinating in public in front of some kids. Not everyone in that database are hardcore predators. Which, is its own problem. Now ask yourself, how many of them have to reoffend for it to be a bad idea to let them out? 1 in 100? 1 in 10? 1 in 1000? Even one single incident?

Is there an acceptable level of school shootings? Yes, probably. If we had one per decade, I might say that it isn't worth upending society to deal with it. Everything is relative and everything is a tradeoff. I think that people having gobs of guns available abets regular crime and crazy shooters. I'm willing to bet that there are other ways to defeat a fascist government that doesn't involve shooting soldiers. I'm willing to let citizens living in remote areas to have shotguns and pistols to defend their ranch that is 57 miles from the nearest precinct.

Absolutism is always stupid.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Lloyd Perna on May 31, 2022, 12:14:32 PM
We didn't always have this problem with school shootings. Semi automatic weapons like the AR 15 have been available to civilians for over 100 years.  The weapons haven't changed that much.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: msquared on May 31, 2022, 12:20:25 PM
Really, AR-15 has been around for 100 years?  They had them back in the 1920's?  Can you provide a source of that?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Lloyd Perna on May 31, 2022, 12:23:19 PM
Really, AR-15 has been around for 100 years?  They had them back in the 1920's?  Can you provide a source of that?

You better re-read my post.  Because I didnt say the AR 15 had been around 100 years.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: TheDrake on May 31, 2022, 12:28:50 PM
So which semiautomatic rifle LIKE the AR-15 was available in 1922?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: msquared on May 31, 2022, 12:30:13 PM
Lloyd

You are correct. I misread what you wrote. You said weapons like the AR-15 were available. 
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: TheDrake on May 31, 2022, 12:30:57 PM
I'll save you from embarrassing yourself with your poor knowledge of the history of firearms.

Quote
Semi-automatic rifles did not see widespread military adoption until just prior to World War II, the M1 Garand being a notable example
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Lloyd Perna on May 31, 2022, 01:24:17 PM
Let me introduce you to the Remington Model 8.

http://thegreatmodel8.remingtonsociety.com/?page_id=8 (http://thegreatmodel8.remingtonsociety.com/?page_id=8)
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: rightleft22 on May 31, 2022, 01:29:04 PM
Quote
In 1994, President Bill Clinton signed an assault-weapons ban, which banned the AR-15 and other similar semiautomatic rifles.
After its ban, mass shootings were down in the decade that followed, in comparison to the decade before (1984-94) and the one after (2004-14)

Once the assault-weapons ban expired 10 years later in 2004, gun manufacturers quickly began production and sales rose.

AR-15-style semiautomatic weapons are civilian versions of military weapons that gun control advocates say aren't very different.
The AR-15, like its military version, is designed to kill people quickly and in large numbers, hence the term assault-style rifle.
The gun industry, gun owners and their supporters say AR-15s are used for hunting, target practice and shooting competitions.

The AR-15 was called "America's Rifle" in a January 2016

The earliest known United States shooting to happen on school property was the Pontiac's Rebellion school massacre on July 26, 1764, where four Lenape American Indian entered the schoolhouse near present-day Greencastle, Pennsylvania, shot and killed schoolmaster Enoch Brown, and killed nine or ten children (reports vary). Only two children survived

There are very seldom reports of mass or multiple school shootings during the first three decades of the 20th Century, with the three most violent attacks on schools involving either arson or explosions.

The early 1980s saw only a few multi-victim school shootings this changes in the 1990
1992-1993 (44 Homicides and 55 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
1993-1994 (42 Homicides and 51 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
1994-1995 (17 Homicides and 20 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
1995-1996 (29 Homicides and 35 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
1996-1997 (23 Homicides and 25 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
1997-1998 (35 Homicides and 40 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
1998-1999 (25 Homicides from school shootings in the U.S.)
1999-2000 (25 Homicides from school shootings in the U.S.)

And then continues into 2000
2000-2001 (19 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
2001-2002 (4 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
2002-2003 (14 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
2003-2004 (29 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
2004-2005 (20 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
2005-2006 (5 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
2006-2007 (38 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
2007-2008 (3 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
2008-2009 (10 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
2009-2010 (5 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Lloyd Perna on May 31, 2022, 01:38:53 PM
What's the source of your data? 
What is the difference between a Homicide and a death related to a school shooting?
How many of the homicides were attributed to an "Assault Weapon"?
Why did you stop at 2010?

Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Wayward Son on May 31, 2022, 01:39:35 PM
Saying that military-style weapons are no different than any other semi-automatic rifle is a bogus claim, since, if it were true, gun owners would have no leg to stand on to object to banning them. :)

Because if military-style rifles were banned, as they were during the assault weapons ban, then anyone could buy any other semi-automatic weapon they wanted.  Any equivalent rifle would be available.  Which means there was no practical inconvenience to any gun owner.

Now, if there is a difference between military-style rifles and others, perhaps that is reason that most mass shooters use such weapons.  Which would indicate there is actually a good reason to ban such rifles, for those differences.

Either way, the argument doesn't work. :)
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: TheDrake on May 31, 2022, 01:57:02 PM
Let me introduce you to the Remington Model 8.

http://thegreatmodel8.remingtonsociety.com/?page_id=8 (http://thegreatmodel8.remingtonsociety.com/?page_id=8)

Don't know what was wrong with the Remington 8, but they only managed to manufacture 69,000 over 30 years. So I doubt they were particularly available or prevalent,  and the military decided Bolt action was better for mass killing, by definition.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Wayward Son on May 31, 2022, 04:02:37 PM
Anyone interested in actual, common-sense, workable gun laws, here is a nice list (https://www.stonekettle.com/2015/06/bang-bang-sanity.html) courtesy of the NRA.  Just don't expect to hear it from NRA leadership.  ::)

Quote
On my range, on any range, military, law enforcement, or civilian, the first rule of gun safety is this:
Always assume the gun is loaded, unless you personally have verified that it is unloaded. ...

Make it a law.

Every gun user is personally responsible for knowing the condition of their weapon. No exceptions. ...

Always point the gun in a safe direction.

Every year hundreds of people are killed or injured by guns because the operator failed to keep the weapon pointed in a safe direction. ...

Know how to use the gun safely.
Before handling a gun, learn how it operates. Know its basic parts, how to safely open and close the action and remove any ammunition from the gun or magazine. Remember, a gun's mechanical safety device is never foolproof. Nothing can ever replace safe gun handling.

Be sure the gun is safe to operate.
Just like other tools, guns need regular maintenance to remain operable. Regular cleaning and proper storage are a part of the gun's general upkeep. If there is any question concerning a gun's ability to function, a knowledgeable gunsmith should look at it.

Use only the correct ammunition for your gun.
Only BBs, pellets, cartridges or shells designed for a particular gun can be fired safely in that gun. Most guns have the ammunition type stamped on the barrel. Ammunition can be identified by information printed on the box and sometimes stamped on the cartridge. Do not shoot the gun unless you know you have the proper ammunition.

Cleaning
Regular cleaning is important in order for your gun to operate correctly and safely. Before cleaning your gun, make absolutely sure that it is unloaded. The gun's action should be open during the cleaning process. Also, be sure that no ammunition is present in the cleaning area. ...

There are no accidents with guns.

Always point the gun in a safe direction, that’s rule #1 of the NRA’s own guidelines.

Always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot, that’s NRA rule #2.

Always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use, that’s NRA rule #3.

You’re responsible for your weapon at all times. You’re responsible for proper and secure carry. You’re responsible for keeping the weapon in proper operating order. You’re responsible for engaging the safety if the weapon is so equipped or for the use of other techniques if it is not. A properly maintained and carried weapon does not discharge when dropped, if it does, it’s your responsibility. Period. No excuses.

Make it the law.

Misdemeanor for failure to point your weapon in a safe direction, for unintentional discharge, for failure to properly maintain and use safety systems if only property damage is involved. Felony negligence if somebody is injured including yourself. Felony manslaughter if somebody dies.

Know your target and what is beyond.
Be absolutely sure you have identified your target beyond any doubt. Equally important, be aware of the area beyond your target. This means observing your prospective area of fire before you shoot. Never fire in a direction in which there are people or any other potential for mishap. Think first. Shoot second.

Make it the law.

Just as you’re responsible for keeping your weapon pointed in a safe direction at all times when not intending to shoot, any gun user should be lawfully accountable for correct target identification when shooting whether it’s on a target range or in the grocery store in defense of an active shooter situation. Period. No excuses. No exceptions.

Misdemeanor for failure to discharge your weapon in a safe direction if only property damage is involved, felony negligence if somebody is injured including yourself, manslaughter if somebody dies.

There are no accidents with guns. ...

Never use alcohol or over-the-counter, prescription or other drugs before or while shooting.
Alcohol, as well as any other substance likely to impair normal mental or physical bodily functions, must not be used before or while handling or shooting guns.

We don’t allow people to operate a car, a boat, an airplane when intoxicated. We don’t let doctors to operate when drunk. We don’t allow cops or military personnel to drink on duty.

But every year thousands of Americans are killed or injured by drunks with guns and even the NRA knows just how insane that is and they put it in writing.

Make it the law. ...

Store guns so they are not accessible to unauthorized persons.
Many factors must be considered when deciding where and how to store guns. A person's particular situation will be a major part of the consideration. Dozens of gun storage devices, as well as locking devices that attach directly to the gun, are available. However, mechanical locking devices, like the mechanical safeties built into guns, can fail and should not be used as a substitute for safe gun handling and the observance of all gun safety rules.

Every year hundreds of people are killed by guns in the hands of people not authorized to have them.

You own a gun, it’s your responsibility. Period. No excuses.  If Adam Lanza’s idiot mother had properly secured her weapons, she and the innocents of Sandy Hook would still be alive. Hundreds of people are killed or injured every single year in the United States by unsecured weapons. Weapons are stolen and fall into the wrong hands, because they are not properly stored.

The NRA itself, by its own rules for safe gun handling, dictates that weapons must be stored so that they are not accessible to unauthorized persons. Note that the NRA doesn’t dictate the method, only the requirement.

Make it the law. ...

And finally, though it’s not one of the NRA’s rules, I’d add

Never provide a gun to someone not authorized to have it.
If you purchase or otherwise obtain a firearm for another who you know is not legally able to own/operate a gun, you are responsible for that person’s resulting actions with that weapon.

If the people who buy weapons for those not authorized to have them were held to account for their actions, Charleston and Columbine wouldn’t have happened – or at least the likelihood would be significantly reduced.

There are no accidents when it comes to guns.

Make that, that right there, the law. There are no accidents when it comes to guns. Period. No excuses.

Make responsible gun ownership and usage federal law, uniform across the United States.

Conviction on misdemeanor gun safety charges? You lose the privilege for a specified period. You engage in remedial action? You prove you’ve learned your lesson? You prove you’ll be a responsible gun owner in the future? You get your guns back. Happens again, you lose the privilege forever. We don’t give drunk drivers more than two strikes either.

Conviction on felony gun handling charges? You lose the privilege. Period. Your name goes in the federal database and you never own or operate a gun again, this includes cops and military.

You’re caught with a gun after losing the privilege? You automatically go to prison, no plea deals, no excuses. ...

Over time, just like with the drunk driving laws, enforcing the NRA’s own rules, the same basic common sense rules that are used in the military, in law enforcement, on civilian gun ranges, and were taught to most of us by our fathers, will change our culture from one of gun fetishists to one of responsible gun owners. And that will reduce gun violence, just as the same approach has significantly reduced drinking and driving.

Make gun safety the law, punishable law, not just some nice suggestion that you can do or not do however you feel at the time.

Gun advocates keep complaining how gun laws take away guns from responsible owners.  Well, here's some laws that would make sure responsible owners get to keep their guns, by making sure only responsible people can legally own them.

Think we can get the Republican Party to advocate for such laws? ;)
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Lloyd Perna on May 31, 2022, 04:41:24 PM
I'm all for it.  How would that stop school shootings?
Also, can we enforce the gun laws we already have please?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: msquared on May 31, 2022, 04:44:52 PM
Didn't we on the Texas shooting?  What law was not enforced that would have stopped that shooting?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Wayward Son on May 31, 2022, 05:55:22 PM
I'm all for it.  How would that stop school shootings?

Of course it wouldn't stop all school shootings, or even many other types of shootings.

But, like drunk driving laws, it would stop some.  Even many.

And after a while, people's attitudes would change (like with drunk driving), so that irresponsible behavior would not be considered "normal."  And fewer people would do it.  Which means fewer idiots would have a chance to get their hands on guns.

Also, can we enforce the gun laws we already have please?

So you're in favor of a crack-down on guns?  You fully support a no-tolerance enforcement of existing gun laws by all law enforcement, and penalties for any law enforcement agency who doesn't crack down on those that use guns unlawfully and illegally?

Good.  Write you congressman and senator and demand that they demand that happens.  Because there are a lot of people who are writing them right now telling them that they don't want to see any change to existing gun laws, except for the repeal of some of them.  Like making concealed carry legal for everyone, including irresponsible people.  Like those who would like to carry while drunk or high.  Like those who want to be able to legally carry it until they get to the person want to murder, like an ex-spouse.

Let's see every firearm law strictly enforced.  Not enforced now and then for certain people, but for everyone.  Then we can see how well it works, and if more does or does not need to be done.

Because sure as anything, it ain't working now.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Wayward Son on May 31, 2022, 06:01:31 PM
Oh, while you're at it, demand that the U.S. government start collecting data on gun deaths and shooting, and doing proper analysis of that.  Because right now, Republicans have been vetoing any legislation putting money into actually collecting such data, in case it might show that certain laws do or do not work in preventing gun violence.  That is something we should have been doing for years.  So we have actual, reliable data to base our responses on, instead of guesses and ideological biases.  You need to demand that from your representatives.  Because my representatives in California are not against such studies, and so it does not do much good for me to demand it.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: TheDrake on June 01, 2022, 10:38:04 AM
I've got a good one to enforce. In Texas, it is illegal to bring a firearm into a bar. It carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison. How many gun-toting yahoos would that allow us to lock up? And when we confiscate their gun for that purpose, their kids won't have guns to take to school. Because that's the number one reason kids get access to a firearm. Over 2/3 of school shooters are under the age of 18 (https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2022/05/27/fact-check-most-mass-shooters-ages-18-19-texas-school-shooting-uvalde-robb-elementary/9933032002/) - although mass shooters are usually a couple of years older, none of them can legally buy a gun. How do they get them? Usually relatives. That's another Texas law, the safe storage law, that says you are supposed to actively prevent kids from getting access to guns if they are under 17. But gun toting yahoos love giving their kids access to guns, because they might have to defend the homestead from masked assailants. So they don't lock them up, and they are often loaded because hey, that's vital time that would be lost when leaping into action! Never mind that their own kid is more likely to shoot themselves or a playmate.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Lloyd Perna on June 01, 2022, 11:09:02 AM
No argument here.  Prosecute them.

While we're at it can we make Chicago prosecute things like illegal possession of a firearm and illegal firearm sales? 
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: yossarian22c on June 01, 2022, 11:27:49 AM
No argument here.  Prosecute them.

While we're at it can we make Chicago prosecute things like illegal possession of a firearm and illegal firearm sales?

They do. They would probably also like to prosecute the straw purchases who buy 200 cheap handguns in Georgia and just happen to resell them to people who sell them to gangs in Chicago. Maybe we should let the ATF track that type of information to see where all the illegal guns are coming from. But most efforts to track that type of behavior has been blocked by the republicans in congress.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Lloyd Perna on June 01, 2022, 11:43:16 AM
This article is a bit dated but I think it clearly shows that Chicago is frequently choosing not to prosecute these types of crimes.

https://www.chicagoreporter.com/thousands-felony-gun-cases-are-being-dismissed-cook-county-criminal-courts/ (https://www.chicagoreporter.com/thousands-felony-gun-cases-are-being-dismissed-cook-county-criminal-courts/)

Quote
From January 2006 through August 2013, thousands of cases involving a weapons violation were thrown out in Cook County’s criminal courts, The Chicago Reporter found. More than 13,000 cases that included a gun violation have been dismissed during that period, shows the Reporter’s analysis of records maintained by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County. In fact, more felony cases involving a gun–from illegal possession to unlawful sale to a felon–have been thrown out than cases with any other type of charge.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: NobleHunter on June 01, 2022, 11:51:59 AM
The article isn't clear if it's an active choice not to prosecute or if Chicago police/prosecutors have problems with getting the charges through court.  If most of the charges stemmed from unconstitutional searches, is it a bad thing if they're dismissed?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: yossarian22c on June 01, 2022, 11:55:10 AM
This article is a bit dated but I think it clearly shows that Chicago is frequently choosing not to prosecute these types of crimes.

https://www.chicagoreporter.com/thousands-felony-gun-cases-are-being-dismissed-cook-county-criminal-courts/ (https://www.chicagoreporter.com/thousands-felony-gun-cases-are-being-dismissed-cook-county-criminal-courts/)

Quote
From January 2006 through August 2013, thousands of cases involving a weapons violation were thrown out in Cook County’s criminal courts, The Chicago Reporter found. More than 13,000 cases that included a gun violation have been dismissed during that period, shows the Reporter’s analysis of records maintained by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County. In fact, more felony cases involving a gun–from illegal possession to unlawful sale to a felon–have been thrown out than cases with any other type of charge.

A judge dismissing a case isn't the same as choosing not to prosecute. It could be sloppy police work, lack of evidence, the Heller decision, or lack of resources to prosecute the crimes. If you have to choose between prosecuting a homicide or rape and a gun possession crime, guess which one gets the resources. The fact that the cases got to court for prosecution to be dismissed seems to imply that the police and DAs office were trying to do something. They may have lacked the evidence or resources to get a conviction but that mean that they were always looking the other way dealing with illegal gun possession.

From your own link.

Quote
According to the state’s attorney’s office, just 12 percent–or 625 out of 5,260–of gun possession cases have been thrown out during the past two years. But the figure only includes cases in which gun possession was the lead charge and excludes some cases involving multiple charges.

Fabio Valentini, the chief of the state’s attorney’s office’s criminal prosecutions bureau, said an “overwhelming” number of the dismissed cases were based on a judge’s decision to suppress evidence because a gun was intercepted in a way that violates the Fourth Amendment. Under that scenario, the prosecutor’s office would have no choice but to throw out the charge. “We’d have nothing to pursue the case on,” Valentini said.

So if anything the police and prosecutors of Chicago are pursing and charging gun crimes too aggressively.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: TheDrake on June 01, 2022, 12:27:10 PM
This article is a bit dated but I think it clearly shows that Chicago is frequently choosing not to prosecute these types of crimes.

https://www.chicagoreporter.com/thousands-felony-gun-cases-are-being-dismissed-cook-county-criminal-courts/ (https://www.chicagoreporter.com/thousands-felony-gun-cases-are-being-dismissed-cook-county-criminal-courts/)

Quote
From January 2006 through August 2013, thousands of cases involving a weapons violation were thrown out in Cook County’s criminal courts, The Chicago Reporter found. More than 13,000 cases that included a gun violation have been dismissed during that period, shows the Reporter’s analysis of records maintained by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County. In fact, more felony cases involving a gun–from illegal possession to unlawful sale to a felon–have been thrown out than cases with any other type of charge.

A judge dismissing a case isn't the same as choosing not to prosecute. It could be sloppy police work, lack of evidence, the Heller decision, or lack of resources to prosecute the crimes. If you have to choose between prosecuting a homicide or rape and a gun possession crime, guess which one gets the resources. The fact that the cases got to court for prosecution to be dismissed seems to imply that the police and DAs office were trying to do something. They may have lacked the evidence or resources to get a conviction but that mean that they were always looking the other way dealing with illegal gun possession.

From your own link.

Quote
According to the state’s attorney’s office, just 12 percent–or 625 out of 5,260–of gun possession cases have been thrown out during the past two years. But the figure only includes cases in which gun possession was the lead charge and excludes some cases involving multiple charges.

Fabio Valentini, the chief of the state’s attorney’s office’s criminal prosecutions bureau, said an “overwhelming” number of the dismissed cases were based on a judge’s decision to suppress evidence because a gun was intercepted in a way that violates the Fourth Amendment. Under that scenario, the prosecutor’s office would have no choice but to throw out the charge. “We’d have nothing to pursue the case on,” Valentini said.

So if anything the police and prosecutors of Chicago are pursing and charging gun crimes too aggressively.

Don't quote the actual article, that's cheating Democrat stuff. Clearly Lloyd only intended us to read the headline and draw the obvious conclusion that Chicago doesn't care about illegal possession and sale.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Lloyd Perna on June 01, 2022, 12:39:40 PM
Or it could be a Judge with other motivations.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: NobleHunter on June 01, 2022, 12:50:28 PM
I don't think that's Chicago's fault, though. Except insofar that they can't make a case to get past a motivated judge.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Lloyd Perna on June 01, 2022, 12:56:06 PM
Who appointed the Judges?  I agree it might not be completely the Chicago DA's issue. Though if they aren't motivated to make the cases stick, it becomes easy for a Judge to dismiss.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: cherrypoptart on June 01, 2022, 01:15:30 PM
If you don't like that then how about this one:

https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2021/10/4/22709632/mutual-combatant-lori-lightfoot-kim-foxx-austin-jack-boys-shootout-four-corner-hustlers

"Mayor Lori Lightfoot and a group of City Council members urged Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx Monday to reconsider prosecuting five suspects in a deadly gang-related shootout last week in Austin after they were released when prosecutors rejected charges against them.

Chicago police sought to charge all five suspects with murder and aggravated battery after they allegedly engaged in a Friday morning gunfight between two factions of the Four Corner Hustlers street gang, the Chicago Sun-Times first reported.

The state’s attorney’s office, however, declined to charge any of them, calling the evidence insufficient. A police report further noted that prosecutors told investigators charges were rejected because the shootout involved “mutual combatants.”

------------------------------------------------------------

So if these were gang members one would expect many of them to have felony records and not be able to legally possess a gun let alone engage in "mutual combat" on the street.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: yossarian22c on June 01, 2022, 01:42:30 PM
...

So if these were gang members one would expect many of them to have felony records and not be able to legally possess a gun let alone engage in "mutual combat" on the street.

One case? Seriously. Optics on that one look bad. But it doesn't mean that it is a systematic failure to pursue gun laws in the city.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: TheDrake on June 01, 2022, 01:54:24 PM
If you don't like that then how about this one:

https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2021/10/4/22709632/mutual-combatant-lori-lightfoot-kim-foxx-austin-jack-boys-shootout-four-corner-hustlers

"Mayor Lori Lightfoot and a group of City Council members urged Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx Monday to reconsider prosecuting five suspects in a deadly gang-related shootout last week in Austin after they were released when prosecutors rejected charges against them.

Chicago police sought to charge all five suspects with murder and aggravated battery after they allegedly engaged in a Friday morning gunfight between two factions of the Four Corner Hustlers street gang, the Chicago Sun-Times first reported.

The state’s attorney’s office, however, declined to charge any of them, calling the evidence insufficient. A police report further noted that prosecutors told investigators charges were rejected because the shootout involved “mutual combatants.”

------------------------------------------------------------

So if these were gang members one would expect many of them to have felony records and not be able to legally possess a gun let alone engage in "mutual combat" on the street.

So they called the evidence insufficient. Are you asserting that there was sufficient evidence, or that the prosecutor should file charges anyway and get them dismissed by a judge instead? The article says the police agreed that there wasn't enough evidence. Police aren't usually in the habit of excusing prosecutors for leaving gang members on the street. There is indication that dismissals overall are up from the previous prosecutor, something like 9% dismissed instead of 5% under her predecessor. Not clear all that is behind that, I can think of a lot of reasons including being less willing to prosecute on weak evidence - or even cops being pressured to refer more cases for charges with weaker evidence. Possibly her predecessor liked to prosecute potentially innocent people and get plea bargains to look tougher on crime.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: cherrypoptart on June 01, 2022, 02:05:39 PM
Evidence of what?

There was plenty of evidence that these people were shooting at each other in the street.

The thing the DA was saying is that there wasn't enough evidence that shooting at each other in the street was against the law as long as they all agreed with each other that it was okay which is why she used the term mutual combat. Shouldn't they also have to get the consent of everyone else around there who might get shot by a stray bullet? And if there are children they can't give consent so their parents have to do it and in writing in the presence of a public notary. I highly doubt that all of the necessary protocols were followed to get a mutual combat public shootout duly authorized in accordance with the law.

They must have some very interesting gun laws in Chicago because even in Texas that wouldn't fly. Surely charges of reckless endangerment are the least we could expect. Not to mention checking to see that everyone who was firing a gun was able to legally possess one.

Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: cherrypoptart on June 01, 2022, 02:09:33 PM
Honestly, it's stuff like this that tells people they need to keep their ability to protect themselves because the police and the judges and the district attorneys just will not do it. The judges and the district attorneys often aren't even trying. In fact, their priority is to keep young men out of prison no matter how dangerous they are. I understand it's against the law to say that but that's the truth.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: NobleHunter on June 01, 2022, 02:10:58 PM
Is there enough evidence to prove any given person in particular was doing the shooting beyond a reasonable doubt? The video is apparently not clear enough to establish the persons identity. What's good enough for the public or politicians isn't necessarily good enough for the courts.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: cherrypoptart on June 01, 2022, 02:17:49 PM
If that were the case then there would be no need to mention "mutual combat" at all.

Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: TheDrake on June 01, 2022, 02:33:30 PM
Evidence of what?

There was plenty of evidence that these people were shooting at each other in the street.

The thing the DA was saying is that there wasn't enough evidence that shooting at each other in the street was against the law as long as they all agreed with each other that it was okay which is why she used the term mutual combat. Shouldn't they also have to get the consent of everyone else around there who might get shot by a stray bullet? And if there are children they can't give consent so their parents have to do it and in writing in the presence of a public notary. I highly doubt that all of the necessary protocols were followed to get a mutual combat public shootout duly authorized in accordance with the law.

They must have some very interesting gun laws in Chicago because even in Texas that wouldn't fly. Surely charges of reckless endangerment are the least we could expect. Not to mention checking to see that everyone who was firing a gun was able to legally possess one.

Well, they speculate about that evidence but its not like the DA laid it out in the article. The police mentioned lack of cooperation, so presumably no witnesses? Were they suspects because of evidence, or because word got around that this is what happened? Unfortunately the gun lobby has made sure you can defend yourself with a gun, thus the mutual combatant thing. If nobody can identify who fired first, I assume everybody there, especially the people in the house, would just be "good guys with guns". Can we prove who was holding a gun, and who was not? Possession charges can't be established without that.

Okay, I found a free article about the shooting and the dismissal. abc (https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-shooting-violence-austin-police/11079879/)

Quote
CHICAGO SHOOTING
Chicago violence: Prosecutors reject charges in deadly gang-related Austin shooting
Mayor Lightfoot calls on Cook County State's Attorney to file charges; Kim Foxx pushes back
By Craig Wall
Monday, October 4, 2021

EMBED <>MORE VIDEOS
Prosecutors rejected charges against suspects in a deadly gang-related Chicago shooting in Austin.

CHICAGO (WLS) -- There is an outcry from the mayor and some Chicago aldermen after men linked by police to a deadly gang shootout in Austin last week were released from custody. Prosecutors declined to charge each of them with a pair of felonies, including first-degree murder.

The mid-morning gunfight, which left one shooter dead and two of the suspects wounded, stemmed from an internal dispute between two gang factions, the Chicago Sun-Times reported.

New video from city pod cameras shows what police say is two people pulling up and opening fire at an Austin home. They ducked for cover as the people inside fired back. One person was killed and two others were hurt in the shootout. Three people were arrested.

Police sought to charge all suspects with murder and aggravated battery. By Sunday morning, a Chicago police spokeswoman acknowledged the suspects had "been released without charges."

The Cook County state's attorney's office explained that prosecutors had "determined that the evidence was insufficient to meet our burden of proof to approve felony charges," a state's attorney's office spokeswoman said, adding that police officials agreed with the decision.

Note, having these cameras at all are opposed by "tough on crime" conservatives. Again, if you can't definitively say who started the violence, it may fall into this "mutual combat" definition.

Quote
Last week, Cook County prosecutors came under fire after making a similar argument after a teenager was stabbed to death during a fight in suburban Schaumburg. The family of the victim, 18-year-old Manuel Porties Jr., later told WGN that prosecutors specifically said they weren't charging the 17-year-old suspect with murder because the fatal fight amounted to mutual combat.

Did they screw that one up too? Look, I'm happy to entertain the idea that better enforcement could be done there, I'm happy to review reports, studies, whitepapers no matter how partisan that try to correlate any of those factors to gun violence. But Chicago has solved their school shooting problem by hardening all the schools primarily. Inner cities have a better ability to screen students entering the school because schools they are high-density and it isn't a large budgetary concern.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: cherrypoptart on June 01, 2022, 02:38:22 PM
If nothing else it seems like they could at least charge them with disturbing the peace. Of if they didn't pick up their shell casings then at least get a fine for littering.

If it was so obvious that the OK Corral gang shouldn't be charged then why would Mayor Lightfoot get publicly outraged about it and express her vehement disagreement?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: NobleHunter on June 01, 2022, 02:40:01 PM
Why would a politician grandstand without regards to the facts? Uh. Do you seriously need that question answered?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: yossarian22c on June 01, 2022, 03:22:56 PM
If nothing else it seems like they could at least charge them with disturbing the peace. Of if they didn't pick up their shell casings then at least get a fine for littering.

If it was so obvious that the OK Corral gang shouldn't be charged then why would Mayor Lightfoot get publicly outraged about it and express her vehement disagreement?

Maybe the identity of the suspects is more in question than they are publicly admitting. Maybe they're still trying to get someone to testify against someone else.  Maybe the DA or police screwed this one up and the Democratic mayor and city council are taking them to task over it. Whatever you think your learning about Chicago's systematic and long term enforcement of gun laws (which is where this claim started) can't be learned looking at a single case. And if the shooters were under 20 they may not have a felony conviction on their record yet. And if the guns used weren't recovered then prosecution for any gun crime would be difficult.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: TheDrake on June 01, 2022, 03:35:56 PM
Update (https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/foxx-lightfoot-announce-gun-charges-in-deadly-austin-gunfight-that-led-to-tension-between-officials/2755751/)

Quote
Thomas Dean, 20, was charged with aggravated unlawful use of a weapon after he was found with three guns used in the shooting, according to police. Foxx said at least one was a “machine gun.”

So with additional evidence, they did charge him?

Quote
The investigation remains open and more charges are expected “in the coming days,” Foxx said, noting that a search warrant was approved for another suspect.

Hm, so they want to try and find him with guns, or are they trying to warn him to get rid of them?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Crunch on June 03, 2022, 11:54:15 AM
AR-15s are good at killing a lot of people all at once. Perfect for mass killers, drug dealers, gang members. Rarely a needed capability for home defense, and utterly useless defending oneself against a criminal in open ground.

You have a really weird interpretation of what these guns are capable or not capable of - neither grounded in the reality of them.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: yossarian22c on June 03, 2022, 11:57:48 AM
AR-15s are good at killing a lot of people all at once. Perfect for mass killers, drug dealers, gang members. Rarely a needed capability for home defense, and utterly useless defending oneself against a criminal in open ground.

You have a really weird interpretation of what these guns are capable or not capable of - neither grounded in the reality of them.

They are really good at firing a lot of very deadly rounds in a short amount of time into crowds of people. They aren't super accurate for target shooting or hunting. The rounds pass through walls making them poor for home self defense. They are great at killing a lot of people at close to medium range, you know mass killing style. They really suck for almost any other purpose.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Crunch on June 03, 2022, 11:58:11 AM
No, you'll note they aren't run by the State of Michigan.

While there are groups that call themselves a militia, they're just aping the form (or more charitably applying a different definition) in order to sound legitimate.

Do you have a link or reference to a 'real militia' in the sense you mean it?

Perhaps the Texas Military Forces  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Military_Forces)is an example.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: TheDrake on June 03, 2022, 12:07:36 PM
Well this is what the Bushmaster advertises:

Quote
Koskoff noted the assault rifle was touted as the must-have weapon for any firefight, boasting that opponents were "single-handedly outnumbered" by an owner toting an AR-15.

Lanza used the AR-15 to fire 154 bullets in about five minutes, executing 20 first-grade students and six staffers at the Sandy Hook Elementary School during his Dec. 14, 2012 rampage.

Now you tell me what it was designed for. Opponents is plural. Being able to fire a round every 2 seconds is designed to be able to hit a lot of targets (people) in a short amount of time. That capability is the capability of killing about 4 first-graders per minute.

Quote
The ArmaLite AR-15 was designed to be a lightweight rifle and to fire a new high-velocity, lightweight, small-caliber cartridge to allow infantrymen to carry more ammunition.

Designed as an infantryman's rifle, and became the M16 in its full auto iteration. An infantryman needs to be able to kill as many enemies as possible in a short amount of time in order to achieve their objective.

You can use it to hunt, or for home defense, or shooting targets. But what it is very capable of is allowing a single individual to kill a lot of people, including at a distance.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Crunch on June 03, 2022, 12:15:13 PM
AR-15s are good at killing a lot of people all at once. Perfect for mass killers, drug dealers, gang members. Rarely a needed capability for home defense, and utterly useless defending oneself against a criminal in open ground.

You have a really weird interpretation of what these guns are capable or not capable of - neither grounded in the reality of them.

They are really good at firing a lot of very deadly rounds in a short amount of time into crowds of people. They aren't super accurate for target shooting or hunting. The rounds pass through walls making them poor for home self defense. They are great at killing a lot of people at close to medium range, you know mass killing style. They really suck for almost any other purpose.

Let's break it down:
1. They are really good at firing a lot of very deadly rounds in a short amount of time into crowds of people. Can you tell me why this gun is particularly good at it and better than any other semi-automatic? Specifically, what makes it so much more deadly than any other semi-automatic gun like a Glock 9mm?
2. They aren't super accurate for target shooting or hunting. The effective range of an AR-15 chambered for .223 is around 600 yards. The 5.56 will get you out to about 900 yards. Being what is apparently the deadliest weapon ever created, it's lethality in hunting is unparalleled.
3. They are great at killing a lot of people at close to medium range, you know mass killing style. And? So is a semi-auto shotgun or handgun (I've seen extended magazines for Glocks that hold 30 or more rounds. No effective difference at close range and mass casualty - most "mass killings" occur with just such a handgun and this style of gun is the most popular among criminals.
5. They really suck for almost any other purpose. They are exceptional for pretty much everything you'd want to do with a gun, very versatile with lots of aftermarket support for things like optics or a million other things.
6. The rounds pass through walls making them poor for home self defense. This is what CNN tells you but you need to inform yourself (https://www.guncrafttraining.com/articles/the-pros-and-cons-of-the-home-defense-ar-15):
Quote
Actually, and perhaps counter-intuitively, over-penetration is less of a problem with .223 than it is with a typical handgun round. The reason why is because of the lighter weight of the bullet. Because the 55-grain bullet is so much lighter than the 115- or 124-grain bullets typical of 9MM cartridges, the bullet will lose velocity much faster once it hits a solid or semi-solid object. Real-world testing has corroborated this theory, and in some tests, .223 was even less prone to over-penetration than 12-gauge buckshot. If you are concerned about over-penetration, your AR-15 is actually a better choice than your Glock 22.



Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Crunch on June 03, 2022, 12:19:15 PM
Well this is what the Bushmaster advertises:

Quote
Koskoff noted the assault rifle was touted as the must-have weapon for any firefight, boasting that opponents were "single-handedly outnumbered" by an owner toting an AR-15.

Lanza used the AR-15 to fire 154 bullets in about five minutes, executing 20 first-grade students and six staffers at the Sandy Hook Elementary School during his Dec. 14, 2012 rampage.

Now you tell me what it was designed for. Opponents is plural. Being able to fire a round every 2 seconds is designed to be able to hit a lot of targets (people) in a short amount of time. That capability is the capability of killing about 4 first-graders per minute.
A semiauto handgun does exactly the same thing. With an extended magazine, I can probably be more effective than an AR-15 in close quarters.


Quote
The ArmaLite AR-15 was designed to be a lightweight rifle and to fire a new high-velocity, lightweight, small-caliber cartridge to allow infantrymen to carry more ammunition.

Designed as an infantryman's rifle, and became the M16 in its full auto iteration. An infantryman needs to be able to kill as many enemies as possible in a short amount of time in order to achieve their objective.

You can use it to hunt, or for home defense, or shooting targets. But what it is very capable of is allowing a single individual to kill a lot of people, including at a distance.

First off, let's not confuse marketing with reality. If this was designed for infantry and is so very good at killing, why is there not a single military in the world using it?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: TheDrake on June 03, 2022, 04:11:11 PM
Well this is what the Bushmaster advertises:

Quote
Koskoff noted the assault rifle was touted as the must-have weapon for any firefight, boasting that opponents were "single-handedly outnumbered" by an owner toting an AR-15.

Lanza used the AR-15 to fire 154 bullets in about five minutes, executing 20 first-grade students and six staffers at the Sandy Hook Elementary School during his Dec. 14, 2012 rampage.

Now you tell me what it was designed for. Opponents is plural. Being able to fire a round every 2 seconds is designed to be able to hit a lot of targets (people) in a short amount of time. That capability is the capability of killing about 4 first-graders per minute.
A semiauto handgun does exactly the same thing. With an extended magazine, I can probably be more effective than an AR-15 in close quarters.


Quote
The ArmaLite AR-15 was designed to be a lightweight rifle and to fire a new high-velocity, lightweight, small-caliber cartridge to allow infantrymen to carry more ammunition.

Designed as an infantryman's rifle, and became the M16 in its full auto iteration. An infantryman needs to be able to kill as many enemies as possible in a short amount of time in order to achieve their objective.

You can use it to hunt, or for home defense, or shooting targets. But what it is very capable of is allowing a single individual to kill a lot of people, including at a distance.

First off, let's not confuse marketing with reality. If this was designed for infantry and is so very good at killing, why is there not a single military in the world using it?

IIRC the M16 had serious reliability problems in the jungles of Vietnam. Reliability matters a lot more to a soldier than the mass shooter, but its capability until it jams is quite nice. Most budget military settled on the AK47, which is reported to take quite a beating. According to Wikipedia, The M16A3 and M16A4 are in active service, including with the Navy Seals.

Range is of course relevant, I think line of sight in a school is less than 600 yards.

Can someone do the same damage with a pistol? Possibly. That's why it would be a good idea to not have those high capacity magazines, that are also designed to kill a lot of people. But it seems there's a reason why mass shooters go out of their way to get an AR-15, that has just as much to do with their perception of its capability as its objective ability. For someone untrained, the longer sight radius means they'll probably be more accurate with the AR-15.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: TheDrake on June 03, 2022, 04:23:37 PM
Quote
It would take the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) – the tech-focused Pentagon arm today known as DARPA – to assure the AR-15’s future as a combat weapon. It lobbied Pentagon brass to secure 1,000 rifles for use by South Vietnamese troops and their American special-forces trainers in 1961. The rifle surpassed all expectations in combat. And by August 1962, ARPA had issued a confidential report on the weapon’s performance in war.

The AR-15 suited the “violent short clashes at close ranges which are characteristic of guerrilla warfare in Vietnam,” ARPA reported, noting that this “extremely mobile type of offensive warfare” had placed a “high premium on small, lightweight weapons.” The AR-15 is now marketed as a macho gun; a notorious Bushmaster ad touts the rifle with the slogan “Consider your man card reissued.” But ARPA praised the weapon as “well-suited to the small stature of the Vietnamese,” whose “average soldier,” it reported, “stands five feet tall and weighs 90 pounds.”
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Crunch on June 03, 2022, 04:54:05 PM
Quote
Can someone do the same damage with a pistol? Possibly.
Of course they can, no possibly about it. In fact, a typical handgun bullet is more deadly than the .223.


Quote
That's why it would be a good idea to not have those high capacity magazines, that are also designed to kill a lot of people.
No, they are designed to allow you to fire without reloading so often. Nobody sat down and designed the magazine to enable killing as many people as possible.  ::)

This is like arguing that the brush guards on large pick-up trucks are designed to kill people when you ram through a crowd.  ::)
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: TheDrake on June 03, 2022, 05:51:10 PM
Quote
Can someone do the same damage with a pistol? Possibly.
Of course they can, no possibly about it. In fact, a typical handgun bullet is more deadly than the .223.


Quote
That's why it would be a good idea to not have those high capacity magazines, that are also designed to kill a lot of people.
No, they are designed to allow you to fire without reloading so often. Nobody sat down and designed the magazine to enable killing as many people as possible.  ::)

This is like arguing that the brush guards on large pick-up trucks are designed to kill people when you ram through a crowd.  ::)

The question is WHY do you need that magazine? What is it FOR? Is it to defend yourself against an assailant? How many rounds do you need to pump into his torso? Tell me other than killing a lot of people as an aggressor, you would want to have a high capacity magazine and avoid reload time? A reload pause has been the window of opportunity that people use to subdue a mass shooter.

The stock answer, by the way, for people defending these magazines is to describe a scenario with multiple assailants needing to be killed, or fighting off a mob. In other words, killing a large number of people. Whether offensively or defensively.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Crunch on June 04, 2022, 10:30:04 AM
Look, you can keep demonstrating how little you know about this all you want but I strongly suggest you dig into this issue beyond CNN talking points.

The reason I need it is none of your business. It’s my right to have it and I can have it for any reason or no reason at all. My right is mine to exercise in any way I see fit. Someone getting a sad about it is utterly irrelevant to my innate human right of self defense. That’s the way rights work.

The second amendment did not create this right, it recognizes and protects it. I would have this right even if the second amendment did not exist. Self defense, even against a government, is an intrinsic right of being a human being.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Tom on June 04, 2022, 02:05:13 PM
Would you therefore argue, Crunch, that anything which makes self-defense more convenient for you should be legal? Are there limits to your intrinsic right to self-defense, beyond which it becomes unreasonable for you to assert that something is being done for your own protection, or do you and you alone have the right to establish what constitutes a reasonable defense of your self and your property?

Also: are all rights intrinsic, or are some in fact created/maintained by the Constitution? If the latter, which ones? I find this especially interesting because the Second Amendment does not address self-defense at all; do you believe that's because the right to self-defense is so intrinsic that it doesn't need to be mentioned as a justification for private weapon ownership?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Fenring on June 04, 2022, 02:12:01 PM
Also: are all rights intrinsic, or are some in fact created/maintained by the Constitution?

Good question, a topic I've tried to bring up from time to time. If there is such a thing as an intrinsic right, what is the source (or the material substance) of its reality? If rights follow from some sort of law or fact, it's difficult to distinguish between man-made law and some other kind of law (e.g. nature, divine, etc) without being clear about what each of these might actually be so that we can be sure they are at least decently well-defined. Is the idea of a right to self-defense, for instance, a 'right' in the sense that there is an eternal truth about life such that this right follows necessarily from it, or is it merely a useful pragmatic artifact of language that describes the fact that life forms will tend to try to perpetuate themselves?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: TheDrake on June 04, 2022, 07:15:12 PM
Look, you can keep demonstrating how little you know about this all you want but I strongly suggest you dig into this issue beyond CNN talking points.

The reason I need it is none of your business. It’s my right to have it and I can have it for any reason or no reason at all. My right is mine to exercise in any way I see fit. Someone getting a sad about it is utterly irrelevant to my innate human right of self defense. That’s the way rights work.

The second amendment did not create this right, it recognizes and protects it. I would have this right even if the second amendment did not exist. Self defense, even against a government, is an intrinsic right of being a human being.

You don't have a right to a gatling gun, grenades, fully automatic weapons, sawed off shotguns, . I'm just gonna work with my pals to take one more off the list. In fact we already did take it off the list between 1994-2004, and it already passed constitutional muster, so you can keep demonstrating how little you know about the Constitution.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again
Post by: Crunch on June 05, 2022, 12:28:56 PM
Where in the constitution does it provide a listing of approved weapons? You’re coming up with the “they only meant muskets” argument and that is definitively not true. I have the ability to exercise my right in any way I see fit. You don’t get to decide the limits on my rights.

And yes, an unconstitutional restriction on the 2A made it through but here’s the fun part, it can still be challenged and, just like the alleged pending turnover of Roe v Wade, it will be. Just like Heller. Six more months of Bidenflation and economic destruction and the potential red wave that’s coming may change those restrictions.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Tom on June 05, 2022, 12:51:37 PM
Quote
I have the ability to exercise my right in any way I see fit. You don’t get to decide the limits on my rights.
So that answers the first half of my question. You are asserting, therefore, that you have an unlimited right to self-defense. May I ask whether this right kicks in only when your life is immediately threatened, or is anything that you do proactively to make it easier to defend yourself from future potential threats also guaranteed by this right?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: rightleft22 on June 05, 2022, 05:53:46 PM
All this talk of rights reminded me of George Carlin's bit on 'rights'

Quote
Boy, everyone in this country is always running around, yammering about their *censored*ing rights. I have a right. You have no right. We have a right. They don’t a have right.

Folks, I hate to spoil your fun but there’s no such thing as rights, OK. They’re imaginary. We made them up, like the Boogie Man, the Three Little Pigs, Pinocchio, Mother Goose, *censored* like that. Rights are an idea. They’re just imaginary. They’re a cute idea. Cute but that’s all. Cute and fictional. But if you think you do have rights let me ask you this, where do they come from?

People say, “Well, they come from God. They’re God-given rights.” Oh, *censored*, here we go again. Here we go again. The God excuse. The last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument, “They came from God.” Anything we can’t describe must have come from God. Personally, folks, I believe that if your rights came from God, he would have given you the right to some food every day, and he would have given you the right to a roof over your head. God would have been looking out for you. God would have been looking out for you, you know that? He wouldn’t have been worrying about making sure you have a gun so you can get drunk on Sunday night and kill your girlfriend’s parents. But let’s say it’s true. Let’s say God gave us these rights. Why would he give us a certain number of rights?

The Bill of Rights in this country has ten stipulations, OK? Ten rights. And apparently, God was doing sloppy work that week because we’ve had to amend the Bill of Rights an additional 17 times, so God forgot a couple of things like slavery. Just *censored*ing slipped his mind. But let’s say God gave us the original ten. He gave the British 13. The British Bill of Rights has 13 stipulations. The Germans have 29. The Belgians have 25. The Swedish have only 6. And some people in the world have no rights at all. What kind of a *censored*ing, *censored*, God-given deal is that? No rights at all? Why would God give different people in different countries different numbers of different rights? Boredom? Amusement? Bad arithmetic? Do we find out at long last after all this time that God is weak in math skills? Doesn’t sound like divine planning to me. Sounds more like human planning. Sounds more like one group trying to control another group. In other words, business as usual in America.

Now, if you think you do have rights, one last assignment for you. Next time you’re at the computer, get on the internet. Go to Wikipedia. When you get to Wikipedia, in the search field for Wikipedia, I want you to type in Japanese Americans 1942, and you’ll find out all about your precious *censored*ing rights, OK? All right. You know about it. You know about it. Yeah. In 1942, there were 110,000 Japanese-American citizens in good standing, law-abiding people, who were thrown into internment camps simply because their parents were born in the wrong country. That’s all they did wrong. They had no right to a lawyer, no right to a fair trial, no right to a jury of their peers, no right to due process of any kind. The only right they had? Right this way, into the internment camps. Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most, their government took them away, and rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country is a bill of temporary privileges.


And then he takes a leap:

Quote
Personally, when it comes to rights, I think one of two things is true. I think either we have unlimited rights or we have no rights at all. Personally, I lean toward unlimited rights. I feel, for instance, I have the right to do anything I please. But if I do something you don’t like, I think you have the right to kill me. So where are you going to find a fairer *censored*ing deal than that? So the next time some *censored* says to you, “I have a right to my opinion, “you say, “Oh yeah? Well I have a right to my opinion, and my opinion is you have no right to your opinion.” Then shoot the *censored* and walk away. Thank you.

A young boy with to easy access to weapons that can kill a lot of people in a short span of time says "Oh Yeah" I have 'rights' and pulls the trigger...

Rights, rights, rights with no responsibility, unconditional rights, what fools are we.

Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Fenring on June 05, 2022, 08:01:47 PM
Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most, their government took them away, and rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country is a bill of temporary privileges.

This is a strong point, but I'm not sure he was making the point he thought he was making. The point I believe he was making isn't that there aren't inherent rights, but that governments are not being entirely honest when their list of "rights" are touted as being "the rights" (i.e. the intrinsic ones). It may well be the case that the government list is indeed a list of temporary privileges in practice, since concerns like 'security' and 'expediency' will trump those "rights" every time. But that doesn't actually mean the people don't have inherent rights, it just means that the word as used by government is a false or self-deluded use of the term.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Tom on June 05, 2022, 08:26:35 PM
This is actually why I dislike speaking of "rights" as things to which people are entitled and prefer instead to speak of ethical and legal obligations borne by members of a given society. As members of American society, we are obligated to recognize and permit certain behaviors from fellow Americans; as humans, perhaps we are further obligated to permit certain behaviors of fellow humans. The concept of a "right" falls apart if you poke at it too hard, but I'm okay with thinking of them as duties expected of the other people around you.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Fenring on June 05, 2022, 08:46:17 PM
This is actually why I dislike speaking of "rights" as things to which people are entitled and prefer instead to speak of ethical and legal obligations borne by members of a given society. As members of American society, we are obligated to recognize and permit certain behaviors from fellow Americans; as humans, perhaps we are further obligated to permit certain behaviors of fellow humans. The concept of a "right" falls apart if you poke at it too hard, but I'm okay with thinking of them as duties expected of the other people around you.

I personally wouldn't exactly put it this way, because it does linguistically skirt around the issue of why people supposedly have these obligations; but I like that your distinction at least gets rid of the sense of a right as an entitlement and frames it as an innate duty that is performed. So instead of "you get this stuff" which feels like you're owed something, it feels like you owe something to others, which in turn brings up interesting questions if you're not religious. Religion already entails a notion of debt - especially in consideration of concepts like original sin - but in secular terms it would be interesting indeed to have to justify in material terms how you could possibly be born inheriting a debt to pay to others in perpetuity. And more, this entire concept begs the question of what happens (or what it implies of you) if you renege on this debt. For example, let's say we were to submit the following as an axiom:

-In order to recognize the inherent dignity of another person you must afford them XYZ.

If you fail to do this, does it imply that you are denying them this dignity, i.e. that they in fact no longer have it? That's what one might conclude if for instance we observe torture technique. However this conclusion would lead to terrible conclusions that I won't go into. So maybe a better framing would be this:

-In order to recognize your own inherent dignity you must afford another person XYZ.

According to this version you cannot actually deny someone that inherent dignity, but somehow that by failing to afford them XYZ you are denying yourself *your* inherent dignity. This is a counter-intuitive axiom, but it would mean your status becomes defined by your treatment of others, not their treatment of you. And this does seem like a good direction to move the argument (and incidentally it also accords better with Judeo-Christian and even Buddhist thought) rather than to frame it as something you demand of others like a king commanding his slaves. What it might mean to demean yourself by denying yourself your own dignity would require quite an exposition, especially if we were using a purely materialist framework. In fact I would very much like to see a serious attempt at that.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Tom on June 05, 2022, 09:48:54 PM
I feel like the concept of "inherent dignity" perhaps begs the (unnecessarily complicated) question, so I would say instead that acknowledging your debts to others is the price of belonging to a society.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Fenring on June 05, 2022, 10:02:16 PM
I feel like the concept of "inherent dignity" perhaps begs the (unnecessarily complicated) question, so I would say instead that acknowledging your debts to others is the price of belonging to a society.

It's important, then, to make sure whether you mean rights are something that a society can violate if they treat you a certain way, versus merely being defined as a deal made with the state (and by this I include the populace). If it's merely a social convention, or a deal, then by definition the state cannot transgress on your rights no matter what they do, so long as it is made 'legal' by that government and so long as the populace appears not to directly oppose it. How this definition could be inspected in lieu of a state where regular people disagree but are afraid to say so (therefore you can't prove they disagree) is a question. In theory if we construct rights merely as a social price then we might be able to derive the conclusion that, for instance, the Nazis violated no ones rights during WWII because they were operating within their own legitimate mandate as a government, and part of their 'deal' was that certain persons were not welcome to the society. Hypothetically we could come to that construction. Practically speaking I would throw out any definition of "rights" that can be altered by fiat in order to subject you to whatever the state decides. Taking that to its full conclusion it would seem to me (and this is a highly simplistic sketch of an argument) that any definition of "rights" that allows it to rest merely on an understood rapport with one's government makes it not mean much more than Carlin implied in the above quote. And that is not of much use vis a vis ethics that you cannot choose to ignore.

But maybe you were only talking person-to-person and not about government at all?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Tom on June 05, 2022, 10:10:38 PM
Quote
If it's merely a social convention, or a deal, then by definition the state cannot transgress on your rights no matter what they do, so long as it is made 'legal' by that government...
As you note, where this all gets messy is when you try to decide whether there are "rights" owed to people regardless of the society in which they find themselves, and whether there's any mechanism by which this can be enforced. I'd argue that certainly some societies will assert that certain obligations are universal and may even expect that members of not only their own society but other societies to acknowledge those obligations -- and that sometimes, when these obligations are not met, that the dispute escalates to some form of violence intended to compel compliance. I suspect that religious epistemologies (and other epistemologies that base their truth claims on similarly untestable appeals to a hypothetical unimpeachable authority) have the advantage, since they encounter little philosophical difficulty in asserting that their sociological priorities should be universal. This is certainly harder if you accept that multiple societies with differing priorities are entitled to existence, especially if in your view a given society's positions are actively harmful.

I don't think governments intersect with rights at all, except insofar as they represent the use of coercion to enforce societal obligation. In Western society, one of the obligations we recognize is that people should be entitled to engage in different behaviors -- up to a point, of course -- of which the majority might not approve, and we have chosen to authorize the government to compel those who might actively work to suppress those behaviors to tolerate those behaviors instead. We call those "rights" because it sounds less complicated.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Tom on June 05, 2022, 10:17:26 PM
But bringing this back to Crunch's assertion of an unlimited right to self-defense, I'm not sure how an argument for such a thing can be coherently framed. I can understand it as something that someone might arrogate to themselves, but if one attempts (again, as I generally do) to frame it in reverse as a public obligation, it very rapidly appears monstrous.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Fenring on June 06, 2022, 12:21:43 AM
But bringing this back to Crunch's assertion of an unlimited right to self-defense, I'm not sure how an argument for such a thing can be coherently framed. I can understand it as something that someone might arrogate to themselves, but if one attempts (again, as I generally do) to frame it in reverse as a public obligation, it very rapidly appears monstrous.

To avoid a protracted rabbit hole (and assuming I'm invited to continue my own line while Crunch may separately engage in his) I'll just focus on this. If we use the two maneuvers mentioned above (1) frame it as an agreement amongst enlightened people, rather than as a baked-in fact of the universe, and (2) reverse the direction so that it's an obligation toward others rather than something one demands for oneself, then we could get to this perhaps: that a right to self-defense should properly be called the obligation to ensure that your neighbor is not rendered helpless against his will. This would give room for a few cases:

-Your neighbor does not want to physically protect or defend himself. In this case being rendered helpless would not be against such a person's will. Then you need do nothing. Let's call this person a pacifist.
-Your neighbor would like to be able to physically fend off aggressors as the case may be; in this case your duty would be to ensure he is not restrained from doing so (by law, by physical force, or by threat). Let's call this person a pragmatist.

The third case is curious:

-Your neighbor does not want to engage in violence at all, nor does he want violence employed against him. In short he doesn't want to be helpless, and also doesn't want to have to use force.

In case #3 your neighbor cannot be allowed to be rendered incapable of defending himself, but as his priority is to avoid violence entirely you would need to additionally (as your neighborly duty) take steps to avoid on his behalf any aggression. And this neighbor we might call an enlightened thinker, in the sense that he doesn't want the problem framed in terms of who can do violence to whom.

And I think there is room here to argue that the "right to self-defense" framed with the initial 2 criteria (social agreement, and duty) could therefore possibly get us to a destination where it becomes your obligation and duty to your neighbor to see to it that threats to people in general are minimized. So rather than it being an in-person duty that takes place in a physical scenario, it would become a duty related to systemic operation in the society. So long as you are ensuring the person is not rendered helpless against their will I would say this fulfills the obligation toward that person's physical security. That the person in question may or may not wield actual weapons in the process would be incidental and not core to this proposition.

If we see it this way then the 'right to bear arms' would only be a special case of the obligation to your neighbor's physical security from attack, where there are scenarios you cannot help with. So it would be a pragmatic band-aid. Like for instance, even if the society was a utopia one could not account for the odd lunatic who acted irrationally even though he had everything he wanted. In such cases he might attack someone else for no discernable reason, and the person assailed might feel incapable of defending himself without a weapon.

But let's look for a moment at the more likely argument: that a person wants to defend themselves with firearms because they actually do not trust their neighbor to fulfill their duty to assure their safety. The recent school shooting where the police stood by and did nothing would be an example of a loss of public trust in the general notion that 'someone' is looking out for them. And in Crunch's defense, it's difficult to define how much of the stated 'right to self-defense' exists in context of a general lack of trust in others to do what's right. If that's true then it means this right, if it is a social agreement, can't be defined in a vacuum.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Crunch on June 06, 2022, 08:30:55 AM
Now you guys tell s how the right to life, to be equal, prohibiting slavery, etc are conditional.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Crunch on June 06, 2022, 08:35:01 AM
It’s not my neighbor or limited individuals I need to defend myself from so much. My primary self defense need is against governments - the biggest mass murderers in history and it’s not even close.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Tom on June 06, 2022, 09:29:44 AM
Quote
Now you guys tell s how the right to life, to be equal, prohibiting slavery, etc are conditional.
Do you believe people have the "right to be equal?" What does that mean?
What right or rights are codified in the prohibition of slavery? Is there a right to only engage in voluntary labor?
And does it count as a conditional right if you can forfeit it through sufficient wrong? Can we compel prisoners to labor in work camps, or sentence murderers to death? Can you lose multiple inherent rights by, say, partaking of a drug your society has asked government to prohibit?

Let's turn around the "I have the right to defend myself from the government" assertion. What, then, are you asking your fellow citizens to grant? That you are entitled to kill them if they, as agents of the government, do things you dislike strongly enough?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: rightleft22 on June 06, 2022, 10:10:30 AM
Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most, their government took them away, and rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country is a bill of temporary privileges.

This is a strong point, but I'm not sure he was making the point he thought he was making. The point I believe he was making isn't that there aren't inherent rights, but that governments are not being entirely honest when their list of "rights" are touted as being "the rights" (i.e. the intrinsic ones). It may well be the case that the government list is indeed a list of temporary privileges in practice, since concerns like 'security' and 'expediency' will trump those "rights" every time. But that doesn't actually mean the people don't have inherent rights, it just means that the word as used by government is a false or self-deluded use of the term.

The government of the people by the people. When the 'rights of the Japanese American's were taken away the people stood by and accepted - continued to vote for those in power that implemented the measures.   We like to blame the big bad 'government' for the horrors of things like slavery as WE would never do such things but the people hold some responsibility about holding those we put into power accountable. That we are easily mislead and manipulated is on the individual.

I think one of the points Carlin was making was that even at a individual level rights our a construct of our own making. All men are created equal - except.... a contradiction set at the birth of the nation and instead of dealing with it we involve ourselves in the semantic discussion of the word 'equal' and 'men'.

Within any social contract rights ought to be viewed as privileges not entitlements we have no responsibility for.

Entitled as we our to our 'rights' Is it no wonder when a young person becomes angry enough to use his 'rights' to take away others  right to life? All these mixed messages.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: TheDrake on June 06, 2022, 10:48:38 AM
It’s not my neighbor or limited individuals I need to defend myself from so much. My primary self defense need is against governments - the biggest mass murderers in history and it’s not even close.

So, then, I take it if you had been one of the Japanese citizens being rounded up, that you would have done your best to kill as many police and soldiers as possible? That's the kind of solution you were talking about? Antifa is actually doing what they are supposed to be doing, violent revolution to force government to behave themselves? The Australians should have kept their guns and killed the people forcing them into quarantine?

Meanwhile, a violent revolution doesn't guarantee a well behaved government. Vietnam, Cuba, USSR, China, North Korea. All products of violent revolution. If you ensure that you have the means to overthrow the government, then that means your communist neighbor does also. I guess he should be able to build an IED, though, because how else other than individual violence are we supposed to defend rights?

You cosplay Patrick Henrys aren't going to stand a chance against a fully equipped platoon of United States Marines. Red Dawn was just a movie, and not a very good one. The Southern states had every weapon possible, an entire army, and they still couldn't overthrow their tyrannical government. Meanwhile, clinging to your revolution fantasy is putting kids in graves.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: rightleft22 on June 06, 2022, 11:09:39 AM
 "I have a right. You have no right. We have a right. They don’t a have right"
The Mass murdering "government" I must protect myself from and replace with ?????? will not become a mass murdering "government"

My rights not your rights, my government not your government... 
My government wont' be a government? 

We really are entitled pricks. My opinions, my rights, my choices, my 'freedom'.... frack any social contract. Me, me, me.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Tom on June 06, 2022, 11:28:14 AM
I think if we're going to be fair to Crunch as he attempts to argue on behalf of his position, we shouldn't impute motives to him or labels like "entitled prick." We've seen little in this thread to suggest that he believes that no social contract, explicit or implicit, accrues to him. I certainly understand and sympathize with the observation that governments are capable of tyranny and extreme violence, even directed at their own citizens, and that citizens might well desire to have the ability to deter that violence through the threat of their own.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: TheDrake on June 06, 2022, 12:14:45 PM
Let's be clear also, that as soon as a group actually starts behaving as if they might assert the right to violent overthrow, all the powers that be will work to curtail that right. Perhaps you're familiar with the Mulford Act? When the Black Panthers decided that it was a good idea to walk around Sacramento armed, in order to defend themselves against oppression? Republicans, Democrats, Governor Reagan and the NRA quickly moved to disarm them.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Crunch on June 06, 2022, 12:22:40 PM
It’s not my neighbor or limited individuals I need to defend myself from so much. My primary self defense need is against governments - the biggest mass murderers in history and it’s not even close.

So, then, I take it if you had been one of the Japanese citizens being rounded up, that you would have done your best to kill as many police and soldiers as possible? That's the kind of solution you were talking about? Antifa is actually doing what they are supposed to be doing, violent revolution to force government to behave themselves? The Australians should have kept their guns and killed the people forcing them into quarantine?

Would have done my best to kill as many as possible? Good strawman! But, ummm, your hypothetical that if I was Japanese and that if I was alive in 1942 and if I was actually "rounded up" is pretty much irrelvant.

Meanwhile, a violent revolution doesn't guarantee a well behaved government. Vietnam, Cuba, USSR, China, North Korea. All products of violent revolution. If you ensure that you have the means to overthrow the government, then that means your communist neighbor does also. I guess he should be able to build an IED, though, because how else other than individual violence are we supposed to defend rights?

You cosplay Patrick Henrys aren't going to stand a chance against a fully equipped platoon of United States Marines. Red Dawn was just a movie, and not a very good one. The Southern states had every weapon possible, an entire army, and they still couldn't overthrow their tyrannical government. Meanwhile, clinging to your revolution fantasy is putting kids in graves.
Really? Let's ask the Taliban if that's true ...
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Crunch on June 06, 2022, 12:29:54 PM
Let's be clear also, that as soon as a group actually starts behaving as if they might assert the right to violent overthrow, all the powers that be will work to curtail that right. Perhaps you're familiar with the Mulford Act? When the Black Panthers decided that it was a good idea to walk around Sacramento armed, in order to defend themselves against oppression? Republicans, Democrats, Governor Reagan and the NRA quickly moved to disarm them.

I am not worried about California's state government. I don't live there.

But here's the thing about that ... you guys are not against guns, you don't want them all banned. You just want the state to be the only one that has them. You want the state to have a monopoly on force, with a defenseless and powerless citizenry. No thanks.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: yossarian22c on June 06, 2022, 12:36:43 PM
Let's be clear also, that as soon as a group actually starts behaving as if they might assert the right to violent overthrow, all the powers that be will work to curtail that right. Perhaps you're familiar with the Mulford Act? When the Black Panthers decided that it was a good idea to walk around Sacramento armed, in order to defend themselves against oppression? Republicans, Democrats, Governor Reagan and the NRA quickly moved to disarm them.

I am not worried about California's state government. I don't live there.

But here's the thing about that ... you guys are not against guns, you don't want them all banned. You just want the state to be the only one that has them. You want the state to have a monopoly on force, with a defenseless and powerless citizenry. No thanks.

The state has a monopoly on force by law and firepower. Individuals have limited self defense rights to use force. To say that you need enough firepower to hold off a SWAT team, much less a military unit is extreme. And we'll see the death totals in mass shootings continue to go up when people are allowed to drive around with 50 cals and no one can stop them until they start shooting into a crowd.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: TheDrake on June 06, 2022, 12:46:28 PM
I don't think it is irrelevant to ask you what conditions would convince you that you will have to exercise this right that you are asserting, Crunch. What scenario do you foresee where you line up a politician in your hallowed gun sights? Or when someone else ought to? I mean, that's what Loughner was doing when he attempted to assassinate Giffords. He was so unstable that his college told him not to come back without proving that he wasn't dangerous with a mental health examination. But because of people like you who need to be able to overthrow the government, he had no problem cruising through his background check. I'm just asking when you're going to pull the trigger, so I can get a feel for why unrestricted access to guns is a good idea.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: TheDrake on June 06, 2022, 12:48:44 PM
Let's be clear also, that as soon as a group actually starts behaving as if they might assert the right to violent overthrow, all the powers that be will work to curtail that right. Perhaps you're familiar with the Mulford Act? When the Black Panthers decided that it was a good idea to walk around Sacramento armed, in order to defend themselves against oppression? Republicans, Democrats, Governor Reagan and the NRA quickly moved to disarm them.

I am not worried about California's state government. I don't live there.

But here's the thing about that ... you guys are not against guns, you don't want them all banned. You just want the state to be the only one that has them. You want the state to have a monopoly on force, with a defenseless and powerless citizenry. No thanks.

Actually, the Defund the Police movement is all about reducing the power of the state's arms. Most people on the liberal side of things would also like to see our military become less powerful.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Crunch on June 06, 2022, 12:51:18 PM
The state has a monopoly on force by law and firepower.
Not with a well-armed citizenry.
Individuals have limited self defense rights to use force. To say that you need enough firepower to hold off a SWAT team, much less a military unit is extreme.
So you think if a SWAT team shows up at my house they are fully within their legal rights to kill me. Cool, cool, cool. Do they also get to sexually assault my daughter? I mean, they have the guns in your dream world, they can do anything they want, right?

And we'll see the death totals in mass shootings continue to go up when people are allowed to drive around with 50 cals and no one can stop them until they start shooting into a crowd.
Yeah, sure. We've all heard that before. Conceal carry, open carry, constitutional carry - it's gonna be a bloodbath. This is an appeal to emotion and can be safely ignored by rational people.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Crunch on June 06, 2022, 12:54:46 PM
Let's be clear also, that as soon as a group actually starts behaving as if they might assert the right to violent overthrow, all the powers that be will work to curtail that right. Perhaps you're familiar with the Mulford Act? When the Black Panthers decided that it was a good idea to walk around Sacramento armed, in order to defend themselves against oppression? Republicans, Democrats, Governor Reagan and the NRA quickly moved to disarm them.

I am not worried about California's state government. I don't live there.

But here's the thing about that ... you guys are not against guns, you don't want them all banned. You just want the state to be the only one that has them. You want the state to have a monopoly on force, with a defenseless and powerless citizenry. No thanks.

Actually, the Defund the Police movement is all about reducing the power of the state's arms. Most people on the liberal side of things would also like to see our military become less powerful.

Yeah, and that's been great for everyone! Violent crime is rising to a level not seen in over 30 years. It's actually a justification for a well armed populace.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Tom on June 06, 2022, 12:55:06 PM
I'll entertain your hypothetical. Let's say a SWAT team shows up at your door for some reason, Crunch. Are you entitled to kill them? Does your attempt to kill them then entitle them to try to kill you? Do you recognize that a SWAT team is legitimately empowered to demand your compliance and arrest, and then threaten you with violence if you refuse to comply? Or is there no scenario in which demanding your compliance should not be met by the expectation of unrestricted violence on your part?

(It's also worth noting that violent crime is not in fact anywhere near historic highs, and especially not correlated with cities that have chosen to reduce police funding. It turns out that the police actually do very, very little to proactively prevent violent crime.)
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: yossarian22c on June 06, 2022, 01:02:48 PM
Quote
...
 And we'll see the death totals in mass shootings continue to go up when people are allowed to drive around with 50 cals and no one can stop them until they start shooting into a crowd.
Yeah, sure. We've all heard that before. Conceal carry, open carry, constitutional carry - it's gonna be a bloodbath. This is an appeal to emotion and can be safely ignored by rational people.

If a 50 cal was as accessible as an AR-15 you don't think we would see increased bloodshed? Sure 99.999% of people aren't going to use it to shoot up a crowd. But 1 person using it in a crowded venue would be devastating. You said you would be as effective with a glock as an AR-15. How about something bigger (50 cal) against a crowd packed together for a concert or exiting a stadium? How long does it take the police to get close enough to stop someone wielding something that high caliber? Is your conceal carry pistol going to do you any good against someone shooting you at 100+ yards? Do you see any limits on a right to bear arms so we can have a safer society?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: NobleHunter on June 06, 2022, 01:05:36 PM
Apparently, cops also do very little to reactively deal with crime. Despite what  you see on copaganda shows, they're pretty awful at actually solving crimes.

Recent history shows the best weapons to use against a modern military are IEDs, MANPADS, and anti-tank missiles. Should civilians be able to own these?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: TheDrake on June 06, 2022, 03:07:08 PM
So you think if a SWAT team shows up at my house they are fully within their legal rights to kill me. Cool, cool, cool. Do they also get to sexually assault my daughter? I mean, they have the guns in your dream world, they can do anything they want, right?

You think you're going to ward off a rouge SWAT team, a precision unit specifically built to kill well armed criminals? The best defense against a bad cop with a gun is a good cop with a gun. Unfortunately cops seem to have a hard time holding each other accountable, and they wind up firing the cops that dare to interfere with another cop using inappropriate violence against a suspect. The more "well-armed" the general population is, the more deadly encounters will transpire. Are you not going to surrender your weapon when the cops pull you over? I mean, if you disarm yourself, who will stop them from raping your daughter?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: rightleft22 on June 06, 2022, 04:01:45 PM
I think if we're going to be fair to Crunch as he attempts to argue on behalf of his position, we shouldn't impute motives to him or labels like "entitled prick." We've seen little in this thread to suggest that he believes that no social contract, explicit or implicit, accrues to him. I certainly understand and sympathize with the observation that governments are capable of tyranny and extreme violence, even directed at their own citizens, and that citizens might well desire to have the ability to deter that violence through the threat of their own.

I was lumping everyone into the group of entitled pricks including myself
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Crunch on June 06, 2022, 05:02:13 PM
Quote
...
 And we'll see the death totals in mass shootings continue to go up when people are allowed to drive around with 50 cals and no one can stop them until they start shooting into a crowd.
Yeah, sure. We've all heard that before. Conceal carry, open carry, constitutional carry - it's gonna be a bloodbath. This is an appeal to emotion and can be safely ignored by rational people.

If a 50 cal was as accessible as an AR-15 you don't think we would see increased bloodshed? Sure 99.999% of people aren't going to use it to shoot up a crowd. But 1 person using it in a crowded venue would be devastating.
The 50 cal is not the issue. The nutjob using it is. The gun itself is an inanimate object, incapable of hurting others unless someone fires it. The nutter that would use a 50 cal to kill others is not going to just say, "welp. no 50 cal, guess I cant whack a dozen people". He'll get another gun, he'll use a bomb, whatever. We don't need gun control, we need mental health reform.

You said you would be as effective with a glock as an AR-15. How about something bigger (50 cal) against a crowd packed together for a concert or exiting a stadium?
I was specifically referring to a crowded room. In that environment, a Glock would be at least as effective as an AR-15. Outdoors may change that. Certainly, a fully automatic 50 cal would be devastating if a nutjob used it on a crowd. We should make sure nutjobs get the necessary mental healthcare or medication they need so they don't act this way.

How long does it take the police to get close enough to stop someone wielding something that high caliber?
Depends. I have a Barrett M82, I can get close enough pretty quickly (about 2000 yards effective range). But why wait for the police? As we saw in Uvalde, that is a bad idea. An intended victim, right there next to the nutjob attacking is already close enough. If they were armed, they could put rounds on the attacker and eliminate him or at least disrupt things.

Is your conceal carry pistol going to do you any good against someone shooting you at 100+ yards? Do you see any limits on a right to bear arms so we can have a safer society?

At 100 yards, no. LOL, I"m pretty good with it but 100 yards is very difficult with a handgun. That's precisely why I need a AR-15.

Why would limits on the right to bear arms make society safer? Seriously, unpack that a bit. Did it work in Chicago? California?  Check this out:
Quote
The Top Five Mass Shootings:

1. The Peshawar School (Pakistan): 150
2. Garissa College (Kenya): 148
3. Paris Attacks: 130
4. Utoya Massacre (Norway): 69
5. Westgate Mall (Kenya): 67

Kenya, France, & Norway have very strict gun ownership laws. In Europe, it’s very difficult to own one. Why aren't they safe? Not to mention that some of the worst mass murders in the US did not involve a gun.
Quote
NYC, 9/11/01, 2,763, Airliner
Pentagon, 9/11/01, 189, Airliner
OKC, 1995, 189, Bomb
Bath Township, MI, 1927, 44, Bomb
Neither the gun nor the restrictions on them protected them and made them safe.

The problem is, that you believe misinformation. The idea that the US has the most mass shootings is a myth created by University of Alabama associate professor Adam Lankford.
Quote
Lankford claimed that since 1966, there were 90 mass public shooters in the United States, more than any other country,” says Lott. “Lankford claimed ‘complete data’ were available from 171 countries.

OK, since 1966, 171 countries, complete data. No. Impossible to have that many countries from that many years be complete. When asked, Lankford refuses to provide any of the data or the methodology that generates his conclusion. You just gotta trust him ... right. No, he won't do it because he's lying.

Quote
It turns out that not only did the U.S. not have the most frequent mass shootings, it was No. 62 on the list, lower than places like Norway, Finland, and Switzerland.

There was also no relationship between the rate of gun ownership in different countries and the rate of mass shootings.

The US ranks 62nd on the list in mass shootings and does not break even the top 5 for most deadly ones. It's in places where severe restrictions on gun ownership occur that you are less safe.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Crunch on June 06, 2022, 05:13:31 PM
Apparently, cops also do very little to reactively deal with crime. Despite what  you see on copaganda shows, they're pretty awful at actually solving crimes.

A strong police presence deters crime. The more cops visible on the street, the less crime (except in California where they don't care about crime). They're OK at solving crimes after they happen. Stopping a crime in progress, well, when seconds count the police are minutes away.

Recent history shows the best weapons to use against a modern military are IEDs, MANPADS, and anti-tank missiles. Should civilians be able to own these?
Civilians can already create their own IEDs. People should be able to own any weapon they can afford. The per unit cost of a stinger, about $120,000. I don't think a lot of people are going to be loading up on those MANPADS or ntitank missiles. They're way too costly to buy and maintain for personal use.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Tom on June 06, 2022, 05:16:03 PM
Quote
We don't need gun control, we need mental health reform.
Is it your belief that someone who would shoot a SWAT team is necessarily mentally ill?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: NobleHunter on June 06, 2022, 05:20:56 PM
Should bombs be more regulated or less regulated than guns?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Tom on June 06, 2022, 05:27:02 PM
Also, regarding the frequency of mass shootings in the U.S.:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/mass-shootings-by-country

Note the dissection of the statistical claims that Crunch is citing here, in particular the observation that averaging per-capita deaths as a result of mass shootings strongly disadvantages countries with small populations that experience very rare but high-death incidents (as happened with Norway).
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Crunch on June 06, 2022, 08:17:06 PM
Should bombs be more regulated or less regulated than guns?

What kind of bombs? What delivery method? What yield? You could be talking about anything from a firecracker to a nuclear bomb. Rocket system? Dropped off a plane? Mobile launch truck?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Tom on June 06, 2022, 08:35:24 PM
We all agree that's an irrelevant digression, right?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: NobleHunter on June 06, 2022, 10:12:14 PM
We all agree that's an irrelevant digression, right?

Well, no.

What kind of bombs? What delivery method? What yield? You could be talking about anything from a firecracker to a nuclear bomb. Rocket system? Dropped off a plane? Mobile launch truck?

You're the one saying civilians should be able to own them. Why don't you propose a suitable level of regulation.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Fenring on June 07, 2022, 11:15:06 AM
Maybe I've lost the plot, but are we now discussing why civilizans should have no restrictions of any kind on owning all existing weapons systems?

Like NH, I'm not sure this is an irrelevant digression. It's irrelevant in the side discussion on the source of rights, but it seems like an entirely different rabbit hole to explore the concept of a maximally armed civilian populace. Would this somehow imply that there should be two separate armies - the Federal army, and the anti-government citizen's army, each armed with everything ranging from assault rifles to stealth bombers and nukes?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Tom on June 07, 2022, 11:34:55 AM
We are discussing that, because Crunch has made it clear that this is his opinion. However, by taking the bait (which was posted entirely as distracting chaff, I'm sure; I do not believe that Crunch is waiting patiently to discuss what he considers differences in degree between the types of bombs he named) and discussing what specific sorts of bombs a citizen should be allowed to own, we're allowing ourselves to go down that (ultimately irrelevant) rabbit-hole. He has already clearly stated that he believes the primary limit on citizen ownership of any sort of weapon should be their ability to procure such a weapon, either by having the funds to purchase one or the know-how to make it. I suppose we could clarify whether this applies to so-called "WMDs" as well, but that's ultimately just a matter of degree; once you posit that a citizen should have the ability to commit mass violence in the name of their own safety, you've already hit the important philosophical waypoint.

Bear in mind, if you want to point out the problems with this position, that Crunch does not always argue honestly. He will not necessarily admit to logical inconsistencies in his positions; neither will he necessarily be chastened by them.

I'd also like to note that this position can derive logically from Alito and Scalia's perversion of "originalism" in Heller. If you believe that the point of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the individual citizens of a state access to weapons even over the express wish of that state, and that the rationale behind such guaranteed access is not only to empower a citizen to defend himself and his property effectively from other citizens but from agents of both the state and federal government, then access to military-grade weaponry is indeed something that's implied. It's one of the obvious issues with incorporating the Second Amendment against the states; you have to ignore that those pro-2A Founders who spoke of citizen militias being able to resist other militaries were specifically expecting states to resist each other and the federal government, and not private militias being empowered to resist all governments. (We can see this within their own lifetimes during the multiple slave rebellions and veteran-led juntas of the late 1700s.)
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Fenring on June 07, 2022, 11:41:20 AM
Bear in mind, if you want to point out the problems with this position, that Crunch does not always argue honestly. He will not necessarily admit to logical inconsistencies in his positions, but neither will he be chastened by them.

I'm personally not gonna touch that position with a 10 foot pole. I'd discuss the concept of what it means to say a person has the right to self-defense, but see no future arguing what we just outlined.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Mynnion on June 07, 2022, 12:07:43 PM
Maybe I'm missing something but it seems to me that defining the limits of acceptability is critical to this discussion.  A free for all would appear to allow those with significant wealth to own any weapon systems they want and to basically build their own armies.  This could be construed to include corporations.  How many nukes can Musk (or Soros or Gates) afford to protect himself against a government he feels is stealing his tax dollars?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Wayward Son on June 07, 2022, 12:19:00 PM
And how can you feel safe knowing that their next-door neighbor has a 10-kiloton atomic bomb, and you don't??

My god, how could you possibly defend yourself? ;)
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: yossarian22c on June 07, 2022, 12:25:51 PM
Maybe I'm missing something but it seems to me that defining the limits of acceptability is critical to this discussion.  A free for all would appear to allow those with significant wealth to own any weapon systems they want and to basically build their own armies.  This could be construed to include corporations.  How many nukes can Musk (or Soros or Gates) afford to protect himself against a government he feels is stealing his tax dollars?

Business competitors beware. Compete with me and I'll bomb your headquarters. What could go wrong? Just remember its not the bombs that are the problem its the ruthless capitalists using them to gain monopolies. The only solution is a corporate arms race leading to MAD. "We all know" allowing the government to regulate arms is the same thing as letting the government and all their agents have their way with your wife and daughter.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Fenring on June 07, 2022, 12:31:33 PM
I've seen arguments that, for instance, Jefferson believed that legit revolution was periodically necessary in order to cut out corruption in the political system. Something, something, blood in the streets. Whether this was citizens against their own state, the states against the feds, or some states against other states, is a detail not pertinent to the general sentiment that perhaps some founders foresaw the necessity of actual civil war being a regular part of life going forward. Putting aside whether there is any practical method of rooting out deep-rooted corruption other than through direct violence, one thing we can sure of is the founders never could have possibly imagined the horrors of war first seen in the 20th century; where post-WWI for the first time in world history even the mighty empires began to feel that more war was unthinkable. I personally can't take seriously any argument about necessary regular warfare without it including a discussion of the destructive potential we have now compared to 200 years ago. And this, in turn, can't be divorced from the thinly held-together world supply chain. War doesn't just mean the people in the conflict die, and it doesn't just mean the people in the surrounding areas starve. It could also mean that people around the world starve. How would you like a U.S. civil war to entail hundreds of millions dead worldwide due to a complete breakdown of the supply chains? But this is all sort of beside the point, isn't it?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: TheDrake on June 07, 2022, 12:33:37 PM
One of the big reasons for the second amendment, is that the founders felt that a standing army was too dangerous for the nation to have. Recognizing that they needed to be able to defend themselves against hostile nations, their answer to this was a militia. Of the kind that kicked things off in Lexington. This was, in fact, "the state" in the sense that it was organized by the town leaders at the behest of the Massachusetts colonial government. They sought to weaken the state by taking away its most potent tool for oppression. I have my doubts that they would have thought that the militia would act against the interests of the state, although they might have thought they would act according to their state rather than the federal government.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Wayward Son on June 07, 2022, 12:38:08 PM
Quote
Business competitors beware. Compete with me and I'll bomb your headquarters. What could go wrong? Just remember its not the bombs that are the problem its the ruthless capitalists using them to gain monopolies. The only solution is a corporate arms race leading to MAD. "We all know" allowing the government to regulate arms is the same thing as letting the government and all their agents have their way with your wife and daughter.

And that really is the principle of this, isn't it?  Even Crunch will admit there are some weapons which individuals or private groups should not have.  Heck, there are many which we don't even want certain governments to have, and try our hardest to prevent them from getting!

So, really, we are not arguing whether there should be some weapons control or not, but where that line should be.

And whether a weapon that can blow the head completely off of a 10-year-old can be legally purchased on any given day by any 18-year-old with a chip on his shoulder and murder on his mind. :(
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: yossarian22c on June 07, 2022, 12:39:01 PM
... But this is all sort of beside the point, isn't it?

Yep. We have to allow all weapons so one day Rambo Crunch can take out mass shooters and defend his home against SWAT teams coming to take his daughter  ::). I mean that logic is iron clad. No argument can sway it. His rights to the biggest and most destructive weapons lie deeper than the second amendment. They come from the very nature of reality. There is no refutation.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: rightleft22 on June 07, 2022, 01:13:13 PM
I was watching a compellation of political adds featuring weapons. Those in and running for office shooting militarily grade weapons implying consciously or unconsciously that such weapons are merely tools needed to get the job done and that they will do what ever is necessary....

Bombarded by these messages of gun culture how is it we wonder how some trouble youth picks up a weapon to make thier point or solve thier problem.
Maybe its Gun Culture that need to be address as well as responsible Gun laws

Personally having a conviction for Gun responsibility it think such adds ought to disqualify the politician from consideration. 
Their dumb and they assume those watching them are dumb
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Fenring on June 07, 2022, 01:16:00 PM
By the way I am certainly open to - or even enthusiastic about - arguments regarding better methods of assigning martial power in a country. I can absolutely see the objection to a large standing army, controlled by a smallish group that in turn is responsive mostly to big money interests and an also smallish power elite, which in turn ends up functioning as a police force to ensure cash flows and to guard the wealth of the rich. This is not all that is going on, but it does go on. So if the fundamental argument really was against a national standing army, or about a different type of mechanism for the governance of this army, or about establishing much more stringent checks on corruption and lack of accountability, or even at a local level about redefining the role of the police, I would find any of these topics interesting. What is not really interesting is the notion of just letting civilians have nukes and hoping this does something productive. It's not even a question of the validity of the idea, but just that it's not really an idea. Now if there was an organized system wherein the public could be given the power to actually pull the plug on Federal power at a moment's notice - no doubt requiring a technological innovation to make it happen - then that would be a cool scifi topic. But everyone armed to the teeth is one of those dystopian films that were pretty big in the 80's and which don't get much replay value.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Tom on June 07, 2022, 01:22:52 PM
I normally wouldn't make this observation at this point in the conversation, but I think it's apropos: we have seen what happens when citizens have the ability to effectively threaten their elected officials, both in this country and in others, even without fully engaging a nation in war. It does not generally appear to result in good governance, but it does give the edge to extremist, militant movements that would otherwise be held in check. Murder and arson committed with impunity against Black legislators and landowners in the South during Reconstruction was absolutely instrumental in terrorizing southern governments into reverting initial reforms. Many of the worst excesses of the modern political period are a direct consequence of armed Confederates (and sympathizers) who had the firepower to intimidate local police and politicians into looking the other way. I can think of very few scenarios in the modern era where a typical citizen might say, "thank goodness for those heavily-armed individuals, without whose threats the government would never have seen sense."
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: NobleHunter on June 07, 2022, 01:29:02 PM
The point of the bomb question is to point out that some of the "arms" required to defeat a tyrannical government are subject to regulation. Once some regulations are established it becomes difficult to refuse any regulation which seems to be the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

Also, it proves the idea that 2nd amendment prohibits all regulation is absurd. It should be untenable to suggest that any yahoo should be able to buy enough explosives to level a building. Which would be why there are rules for the purchasing and sale of explosives.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Tom on June 07, 2022, 02:05:38 PM
There is a concept in rhetorical argument often called "biting the bullet," which means accepting the potentially problematic consequences of a position. Someone willing to claim that citizens should be able to own whatever weapons they want in order to have a chance of threatening the government might accept that this means that dangerously unstable people might be able to obtain and use destructive weapons, but simply accept that this is one potential cost of being able to combat tyranny. (Recent polling shows, for example, that 44% of responding Republicans agreed that mass shootings are, as worded in the poll, "unfortunately something we have to accept as a free society.") They might also try to dodge the bullet, by arguing that typical citizens will prove unable to acquire their own massively destructive weapons (and that private/corporate militias capable of doing so will be subject to consumer reaction); or asserting that such an ever-escalating weapons race will necessarily create détente through game theory: "mutually assured destruction" on a small scale, or the idea popular with some conservatives that an armed citizenry is as a direct result of the threat of death also a polite citizenry. It's also possible, although pretty difficult in this case, to assert that there is no bullet at all, and that citizens simply will not buy and use powerful weaponry if given the opportunity.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Fenring on June 07, 2022, 02:23:31 PM
game theory

Man, don't even go there :)

Game theory, or an argument of an analogous sort, is entirely at the core of the types of arguments about "what would happen if". It's a thought experiment meant to employ logic to define a most logical outcome of a scenario. So "what would happen if anyone could have any weapon" is a scenario that could be armchair quarterbacked for the next century, but fundamentally it would have the same problem game theory has: there's nothing behind it. I've read multiple 'textbooks' on game theory at this point, sincerely hoping to be shown how exciting a field it is. I don't even like "A Beautiful Mind" but I'm a fan of formal logic so I figured it would be equally interesting. However I have to submit at this point in time that I'm more or less convinced it's complete nonsense. It is quite similar in its fundamental assumptions to many economic analyses, in which theoretical logic is meant to predict what human beings will do in an undefined future condition. As some of you who study economics or the markets may note, no one can predict what people will do in almost any situation, nor can we predict which situations will in fact occur or what the side effects of these situations will be. Assigning an "optimal outcome" analysis to even the most simplistic situation (the prisoner's dilemma) will likely bear little relation to what actually happens and what the people involved are actually thinking.

Quote
It's also possible, although pretty difficult in this case, to assert that there is no bullet at all, and that citizens simply will not buy and use powerful weaponry if given the opportunity.

Difficult indeed, since Crunch's overt position is that the purpose of the law in question is to employ powerful weaponry against tyranny.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: yossarian22c on June 07, 2022, 02:44:43 PM
game theory

Man, don't even go there :)

Game theory, or an argument of an analogous sort, is entirely at the core of the types of arguments about "what would happen if". It's a thought experiment meant to employ logic to define a most logical outcome of a scenario. So "what would happen if anyone could have any weapon" is a scenario that could be armchair quarterbacked for the next century, but fundamentally it would have the same problem game theory has: there's nothing behind it. I've read multiple 'textbooks' on game theory at this point, sincerely hoping to be shown how exciting a field it is. I don't even like "A Beautiful Mind" but I'm a fan of formal logic so I figured it would be equally interesting. However I have to submit at this point in time that I'm more or less convinced it's complete nonsense. It is quite similar in its fundamental assumptions to many economic analyses, in which theoretical logic is meant to predict what human beings will do in an undefined future condition. As some of you who study economics or the markets may note, no one can predict what people will do in almost any situation, nor can we predict which situations will in fact occur or what the side effects of these situations will be. Assigning an "optimal outcome" analysis to even the most simplistic situation (the prisoner's dilemma) will likely bear little relation to what actually happens and what the people involved are actually thinking.
...

Game theory works best applied to games. I think the most interesting and applicable game theory work is in poker. The simplifying assumptions for anything more complex than a game with fixed rules and limited choices usually make the resulting models dubious at best. But game theory optimized computers can beat the best poker players in the world over the long term.

Ultimately, game theory has the coolest mathematical name with some of the weakest results. Minimax/Maximin ideas are interesting but the nearly perfect knowledge needed about the underlying probabilities and payoffs rarely exist in the real world. Poker is probably the most complex topic that people have made significant progress on. Because there is real money to be won by the best players learning to be better. In poker the probabilities and payoffs can be calculated exactly. There are deviations to the strategy if your opponent is playing too loose or too tight. But there are real results in that narrow little branch of game theory that are applicable to poker players.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: TheDrake on June 07, 2022, 03:18:29 PM
The private army thing has been roundly explored in many good sci-fi books as well.

Heinlein, I will fear no evil:

Quote
My hotel was only five minutes from the medical center." "I must now admit to having taken another liberty, Doctor. Your luggage was packed, your hotel bill has been paid, and all your things were moved to my guest room." "My word. Why?" "Better security." "That hotel seemed secure to me. Armed guards on every door, more armed men operating the lifts-I could not get in or out without showing my I.D. at least thrice. Reminded me of the army. Hadn't realized what an armed camp the States are. Isn't it rather a nuisance?" "Yes. But one grows used to it. Your hotel is safe enough, physically. But the press are onto us now and they can get inside. And so can the police." Boyle looked troubled but not panicky.

Quote
The number of licensed private police in the United States reached triple the number of 'public peace officers. Miss Joan née Johann Smith received over two thousand proposals of marriage, more than that number of less formal proposals, one hundred eighty-seven death threats, an undisclosed number of extortion notes, and four bombs-not any of which she received in person as they were diverted to Mercury Private Courier Service under procedures set up years earlier.

Must have been ten years since I last read this one, if not more, but it seemed to have mostly aged well. Total reliance on private security forces for offense and defense are a staple of the story. It doesn't hurt that it indicates the kind of power that a billionaire type could wield in such a dystopian world. They essentially become above the law, because they have sufficient firepower to be largely immune to the state's efforts to curtail them.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Fenring on June 07, 2022, 03:45:15 PM
Game theory works best applied to games. I think the most interesting and applicable game theory work is in poker. The simplifying assumptions for anything more complex than a game with fixed rules and limited choices usually make the resulting models dubious at best. But game theory optimized computers can beat the best poker players in the world over the long term.

Yes, the textbooks always make their strongest case when inspecting limited scenarios with few fixed options and discreet outcomes. By the halfway point in the books they always pivot to real world application and try to show military/tactical uses, and so forth, and every time I can easily find many variables they are not accounting for. At best it becomes a probability study, and even then the probabilities are essentially arbitrary. Once the choices and the outcomes are analog (i.e. non-discreet) it quickly becomes chaos. That's mostly why I have much more respect for complex systems analysis than for game theory.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: rightleft22 on June 07, 2022, 05:14:48 PM
I think it can be argued that at no time in history have so many people around the world had it as good as we have it today especially in the west. Yet instead of being grateful I hear growing talk about how we must protect ourselves from our government by force. That when some group doesn't' get things their way that tyranny and to right that wrong armed resistance where if successfully the group gets to enforce thier 'freedom' on everyone else.  Its like we haven't learned anything from the past.

Maybe we have it too good? We certainly don't deserve our good fortune of being born in this time and country, but oh we are entitled.... and so afraid. 

'Rights', 'Freedom' with no thought about how those ideals function within a social contact of democracy.
 
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Lloyd Perna on June 07, 2022, 06:29:48 PM
The private army thing has been roundly explored in many good sci-fi books as well.

Heinlein, I will fear no evil:

Quote
My hotel was only five minutes from the medical center." "I must now admit to having taken another liberty, Doctor. Your luggage was packed, your hotel bill has been paid, and all your things were moved to my guest room." "My word. Why?" "Better security." "That hotel seemed secure to me. Armed guards on every door, more armed men operating the lifts-I could not get in or out without showing my I.D. at least thrice. Reminded me of the army. Hadn't realized what an armed camp the States are. Isn't it rather a nuisance?" "Yes. But one grows used to it. Your hotel is safe enough, physically. But the press are onto us now and they can get inside. And so can the police." Boyle looked troubled but not panicky.

Quote
The number of licensed private police in the United States reached triple the number of 'public peace officers. Miss Joan née Johann Smith received over two thousand proposals of marriage, more than that number of less formal proposals, one hundred eighty-seven death threats, an undisclosed number of extortion notes, and four bombs-not any of which she received in person as they were diverted to Mercury Private Courier Service under procedures set up years earlier.

Must have been ten years since I last read this one, if not more, but it seemed to have mostly aged well. Total reliance on private security forces for offense and defense are a staple of the story. It doesn't hurt that it indicates the kind of power that a billionaire type could wield in such a dystopian world. They essentially become above the law, because they have sufficient firepower to be largely immune to the state's efforts to curtail them.

Fiction doesn't indicate anything.  It's merely what one person imagines the kind of power a billionaire could wield in such world.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Crunch on June 07, 2022, 06:41:18 PM
We all agree that's an irrelevant digression, right?

Well, no.

What kind of bombs? What delivery method? What yield? You could be talking about anything from a firecracker to a nuclear bomb. Rocket system? Dropped off a plane? Mobile launch truck?

You're the one saying civilians should be able to own them. Why don't you propose a suitable level of regulation.

You’re the one saying the constitution lists allowed weapons. Please show me where that list is and then I’ll propose something.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Crunch on June 07, 2022, 06:45:22 PM
And how can you feel safe knowing that their next-door neighbor has a 10-kiloton atomic bomb, and you don't??

My god, how could you possibly defend yourself? ;)

You think the next door neighbor can shell out millions to aquire a nuclear bomb and the roughy $1.8 million per year to maintain it? Really?

My god, do you even hear yourself?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Crunch on June 07, 2022, 06:48:49 PM
The point of the bomb question is to point out that some of the "arms" required to defeat a tyrannical government are subject to regulation. Once some regulations are established it becomes difficult to refuse any regulation which seems to be the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

Also, it proves the idea that 2nd amendment prohibits all regulation is absurd. It should be untenable to suggest that any yahoo should be able to buy enough explosives to level a building. Which would be why there are rules for the purchasing and sale of explosives.


The point you guys continue to ignore, for obvious reasons, is that the Taliban secured the unconditional surrender of US forces. They did it without WMDs or even any air support. How do square that reality with your WMD requirements fantasy?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Fenring on June 07, 2022, 06:51:57 PM
The point you guys continue to ignore, for obvious reasons, is that the Taliban secured the unconditional surrender of US forces. They did it without WMDs or even any air support. How do square that reality with your WMD requirements fantasy?

This is possibly the strangest post I've seen you make on Ornery. Is this some kind of Dorothy Day/Ghandi concept that any violent force can be defeated using completely non-violent means?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Tom on June 07, 2022, 07:43:31 PM
In Gandhi's defense, he was not under the impression that any violent force could be defeated through non-violent means.

--------------

It appears that Crunch, by the way, appears to be trying to dodge the bullet here by saying that the really nasty weapons will be too expensive for typical citizens to obtain and maintain, and moreover that they wouldn't even be necessary for effective opposition to the American armed forces, anyway. Is that a fair summary of your position, Crunch?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Fenring on June 07, 2022, 09:28:56 PM
In Gandhi's defense, he was not under the impression that any violent force could be defeated through non-violent means.

Heh, I was calling it a Ghandi concept, not Ghandi's actual practice. It was metaphoric...and in any case the Dorothy Day literal position better encapsulates the concept that you do not actually have to accumulate force equal to the opposition to prevail (hers is a special case of this, where no force is required, just sufficient martyrdom). I did not actually think this was Crunch's point anyhow  :P
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: jc44 on June 08, 2022, 07:11:25 AM
And how can you feel safe knowing that their next-door neighbor has a 10-kiloton atomic bomb, and you don't??

My god, how could you possibly defend yourself? ;)

You think the next door neighbor can shell out millions to aquire a nuclear bomb and the roughy $1.8 million per year to maintain it? Really?

My god, do you even hear yourself?
Lets try the much simpler and cheaper alternative of - don't you feel so much safer on the subway knowing that the guy sitting next to you has a bandolier of grenades on him?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Mynnion on June 08, 2022, 07:49:49 AM
Quote
And how can you feel safe knowing that their next-door neighbor has a 10-kiloton atomic bomb, and you don't??

My god, how could you possibly defend yourself? ;)

You think the next door neighbor can shell out millions to aquire a nuclear bomb and the roughy $1.8 million per year to maintain it? Really?

My god, do you even hear yourself?

Maybe not my next door neighbor but there are individuals who could.  There are also corporations that could.  But why choose the most extreme.  The Oklahoma City bomber used fertilizer.  Is C4 more affordable?  How many people can you kill with it detonated at the correct time and place?  I know I need it to protect myself from the nut cases in the government, roving gangs of thugs, and/or the next zombie apocalypse.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Crunch on June 08, 2022, 08:46:49 AM
And how can you feel safe knowing that their next-door neighbor has a 10-kiloton atomic bomb, and you don't??

My god, how could you possibly defend yourself? ;)

You think the next door neighbor can shell out millions to aquire a nuclear bomb and the roughy $1.8 million per year to maintain it? Really?

My god, do you even hear yourself?
Lets try the much simpler and cheaper alternative of - don't you feel so much safer on the subway knowing that the guy sitting next to you has a bandolier of grenades on him?

I dunno. Is he sitting there quietly and reading a book? Should I feel threatened by that? Why?

You guys constantly ascribe intent onto inanimate objects and fantasize about what weapons the average person may own despite multimillion dollar price tags. Is there any way to keep this in the realm of reality. Appears not.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Crunch on June 08, 2022, 08:49:51 AM
Quote
And how can you feel safe knowing that their next-door neighbor has a 10-kiloton atomic bomb, and you don't??

My god, how could you possibly defend yourself? ;)

You think the next door neighbor can shell out millions to aquire a nuclear bomb and the roughy $1.8 million per year to maintain it? Really?

My god, do you even hear yourself?

Maybe not my next door neighbor but there are individuals who could.  There are also corporations that could.  But why choose the most extreme.  The Oklahoma City bomber used fertilizer.  Is C4 more affordable?  How many people can you kill with it detonated at the correct time and place?  I know I need it to protect myself from the nut cases in the government, roving gangs of thugs, and/or the next zombie apocalypse.

corporations are not people and I think we would all agree that treating them as though they are is a bad idea. It’s also extremely unlikely Gates, Musk, Bezos, et al are going to buy WMDs. They’ll buy politicians, cheaper and easier to do.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Fenring on June 08, 2022, 08:58:52 AM
corporations are not people and I think we would all agree that treating them as though they are is a bad idea. It’s also extremely unlikely Gates, Musk, Bezos, et al are going to buy WMDs. They’ll buy politicians, cheaper and easier to do.

Haha, are you joking? Musk would totally buy ridiculous armaments and then tweet about them all the time. He's a technophile. And Bezos the narcissist, yeah, I'm sure his moves would all be based on Vulcan logic.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Mynnion on June 08, 2022, 09:00:49 AM
Quote
Quote from: Mynnion on Today at 07:49:49 AM
Quote
And how can you feel safe knowing that their next-door neighbor has a 10-kiloton atomic bomb, and you don't??

My god, how could you possibly defend yourself? ;)

You think the next door neighbor can shell out millions to aquire a nuclear bomb and the roughy $1.8 million per year to maintain it? Really?

My god, do you even hear yourself?

Maybe not my next door neighbor but there are individuals who could.  There are also corporations that could.  But why choose the most extreme.  The Oklahoma City bomber used fertilizer.  Is C4 more affordable?  How many people can you kill with it detonated at the correct time and place?  I know I need it to protect myself from the nut cases in the government, roving gangs of thugs, and/or the next zombie apocalypse.

corporations are not people and I think we would all agree that treating them as though they are is a bad idea. It’s also extremely unlikely Gates, Musk, Bezos, et al are going to buy WMDs. They’ll buy politicians, cheaper and easier to do.

Heard of Citizen's United?

You are also ignoring the questions about cheaper means of mass killing.  I agree that Nukes are a long shot but you refuse to recognize limits so all possibilities are fair game.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: yossarian22c on June 08, 2022, 09:05:32 AM
...

corporations are not people and I think we would all agree that treating them as though they are is a bad idea.
...

Care to let the conservatives on the Supreme court know that it is a bad idea. Every time they get a chance they expand corporate personhood rights.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: yossarian22c on June 08, 2022, 09:10:32 AM
...
I dunno. Is he sitting there quietly and reading a book? Should I feel threatened by that? Why?
...

How do you know he isn't one of the people you claim needs mental health care? Mass shooters aren't walking around muttering and twitching. They are just angry, frustrated, and hopeless. Can you tell at a glance that he's just waiting for the car to get crowded then pull all the pins and kill as many people as he can? If he's sitting there unarmed then that isn't a possibility you need to consider.

Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Crunch on June 08, 2022, 09:21:20 AM
...

corporations are not people and I think we would all agree that treating them as though they are is a bad idea.
...

Care to let the conservatives on the Supreme court know that it is a bad idea. Every time they get a chance they expand corporate personhood rights.

I would love to. Unfortunately, they don't listen to me.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Crunch on June 08, 2022, 09:30:50 AM
...
I dunno. Is he sitting there quietly and reading a book? Should I feel threatened by that? Why?
...

How do you know he isn't one of the people you claim needs mental health care? Mass shooters aren't walking around muttering and twitching. They are just angry, frustrated, and hopeless. Can you tell at a glance that he's just waiting for the car to get crowded then pull all the pins and kill as many people as he can?

Well, can you tell at a glance that he's normal? Odds are really good that he is. If he's a normal dude, sitting there quietly, why should he be deprived of his rights? We don't know how he'd vote too, maybe we should curtail that right? You know, just in case. But if he jumped up and started pulling out a grenade, do you think I would just sit there and consign myself to the fate he dictates?

If he's sitting there unarmed then that isn't a possibility you need to consider.
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, you know. Because you're fearful, does not mean he loses his right to presumption of innocence.

If he's sitting there unarmed, then shouldn't we also consider his grenades are concealed?!?! Oh my God, he could have a dozen grenades under that jacket or in his backpack! Perhaps even a small-scale thermonucelar warhead, just ready to detonate! ER MAH GERD, BERMBS ERVERERWHER!
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Crunch on June 08, 2022, 09:37:50 AM
Quote
Quote from: Mynnion on Today at 07:49:49 AM
Quote
And how can you feel safe knowing that their next-door neighbor has a 10-kiloton atomic bomb, and you don't??

My god, how could you possibly defend yourself? ;)

You think the next door neighbor can shell out millions to aquire a nuclear bomb and the roughy $1.8 million per year to maintain it? Really?

My god, do you even hear yourself?

Maybe not my next door neighbor but there are individuals who could.  There are also corporations that could.  But why choose the most extreme.  The Oklahoma City bomber used fertilizer.  Is C4 more affordable?  How many people can you kill with it detonated at the correct time and place?  I know I need it to protect myself from the nut cases in the government, roving gangs of thugs, and/or the next zombie apocalypse.

corporations are not people and I think we would all agree that treating them as though they are is a bad idea. It’s also extremely unlikely Gates, Musk, Bezos, et al are going to buy WMDs. They’ll buy politicians, cheaper and easier to do.

Heard of Citizen's United?
Citizen's United over­turned elec­tion spend­ing restric­tions that date back more than 100 years, essentially giving corporations first amendment rights. It can just as easily be challenged and overturned and likely should.
You are also ignoring the questions about cheaper means of mass killing.  I agree that Nukes are a long shot but you refuse to recognize limits so all possibilities are fair game.
ALL possibilities are fair game ... except that the possibility that they might be a law-abiding citizen with no intent to harm anyone. That possibility is just not allowed.

The idea that any individual has the means and desire to acquire a nuclear weapon is just absurd, it's the stuff of fiction. And that they would actually use one? Come on, can we stay in reality just a little bit and not go down the road of logical fallacies?

Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Crunch on June 08, 2022, 09:41:38 AM
corporations are not people and I think we would all agree that treating them as though they are is a bad idea. It’s also extremely unlikely Gates, Musk, Bezos, et al are going to buy WMDs. They’ll buy politicians, cheaper and easier to do.

Haha, are you joking? Musk would totally buy ridiculous armaments and then tweet about them all the time. He's a technophile. And Bezos the narcissist, yeah, I'm sure his moves would all be based on Vulcan logic.

Yeah? Then why hasn't he? Where's his F18 and his B2? Where are his tanks and private army to support and use them? Are you thinking he's put nukes in space on a secretly orbiting space station?

If you say he would totally buy them, point out to me where he has. Let's see this list of military hardware wealthy people buy that you fantasize about.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Tom on June 08, 2022, 09:55:28 AM
Quote
You guys constantly ascribe intent onto inanimate objects and fantasize about what weapons the average person may own...
For my part, I ascribe no intent to objects. Rather, I assume intent on the part of people who expend effort beyond the average to acquire weapons.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: TheDrake on June 08, 2022, 10:25:51 AM
The point you guys continue to ignore, for obvious reasons, is that the Taliban secured the unconditional surrender of US forces. They did it without WMDs or even any air support. How do square that reality with your WMD requirements fantasy?

How do you square your fantasy? Countries facing an existential threat don't give up and walk away. We got defeated in Vietnam, because we could walk away.  Soviets in Afghanistan. British in India and America. Your hypothetical civil war isn't something the United States government or its military forces could walk away from. Even the Basque have a better chance than the Michigan Militia fantasy scenario, because at least theoretically France and Spain could let them win and their countries would exist largely intact. You're going to have to render the United States armed forces incapable of fighting back, either by your backyard armaments or by convincing enough soldiers to stage a coup in defense of the Constitution, to which they swore their oath. You'll certainly find people within those ranks who will do that under the right circumstances, but they will likely be ineffective unless military leadership decides to jump in. You'll need command and control and bases from which to launch operations, like civil war forts. You could drag it out interminably, like the Basque ETA. Even our own history with the American Revolution, we're unlikely to be successful without French help dividing British forces and adding naval power. Which foreign nation do you fancy is going to supply your league of patriots? Who is going to make sure you have long range rockets? The entire concept is laughably naive.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Wayward Son on June 08, 2022, 11:09:34 AM
And how can you feel safe knowing that their next-door neighbor has a 10-kiloton atomic bomb, and you don't??

My god, how could you possibly defend yourself? ;)

You think the next door neighbor can shell out millions to aquire a nuclear bomb and the roughy $1.8 million per year to maintain it? Really?

My god, do you even hear yourself?

<Doing my best Foghorm Leghorn impression> It's a joke, son.  You're supposed to laugh.  ;D
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Tom on June 08, 2022, 11:20:10 AM
Drake, I am extremely reluctant to speak for Crunch, because he intentionally ekes out responses in a limited way to avoid over-extending, but I would imagine that his imagined acts of rebellion are not a full-scale, "America has fallen" kind of scenario but rather the sort of limited violent opposition that has historically been able to work: the KKK, or the Bundy Standoff, or even the temporary Portland Autonomous Zone. There's ample evidence to suggest that, as long as you're a white person, being willing to shoot the factotums sent by the government to enforce their edicts will occasionally result in one or two deaths but also a revocation of some or all of those edicts. Don't try it on behalf of non-white people, though.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: TheDrake on June 08, 2022, 11:51:32 AM
Drake, I am extremely reluctant to speak for Crunch, because he intentionally ekes out responses in a limited way to avoid over-extending, but I would imagine that his imagined acts of rebellion are not a full-scale, "America has fallen" kind of scenario but rather the sort of limited violent opposition that has historically been able to work: the KKK, or the Bundy Standoff, or even the temporary Portland Autonomous Zone. There's ample evidence to suggest that, as long as you're a white person, being willing to shoot the factotums sent by the government to enforce their edicts will occasionally result in one or two deaths but also a revocation of some or all of those edicts. Don't try it on behalf of non-white people, though.

I won't speak for Crunch either, but the majority of 2A yahoos picture themselves as modern day minutemen, not symbolic resistance like Bundy. You could look at situations like the repeal of the Stamp Act as bowing to violent resistance as well, but as we know that ultimately never resolved the issues. Bundy made a big show of telling patriots that it was "time". That's why I was trying to clarify when Crunch would consider it "time". Because the sufficiently unhinged can consider a parking ticket to be tyranny, and I don't want them to be armed at all, or at the least armed as little as possible, or at the least delayed in getting their hands on arms and ammunition. The threat of armed terror against public officials, including law enforcement, is actually even worse than sacrificing a couple of dozen kids per year to the volcano of freedom.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Crunch on June 08, 2022, 01:03:36 PM
The point you guys continue to ignore, for obvious reasons, is that the Taliban secured the unconditional surrender of US forces. They did it without WMDs or even any air support. How do square that reality with your WMD requirements fantasy?

How do you square your fantasy? Countries facing an existential threat don't give up and walk away. We got defeated in Vietnam, because we could walk away.  Soviets in Afghanistan. British in India and America. Your hypothetical civil war isn't something the United States government or its military forces could walk away from. Even the Basque have a better chance than the Michigan Militia fantasy scenario, because at least theoretically France and Spain could let them win and their countries would exist largely intact. You're going to have to render the United States armed forces incapable of fighting back, either by your backyard armaments or by convincing enough soldiers to stage a coup in defense of the Constitution, to which they swore their oath. You'll certainly find people within those ranks who will do that under the right circumstances, but they will likely be ineffective unless military leadership decides to jump in.

This is a common foundation for the fantasy of military power - despite the indisputable fact it's been disproven.

Can the military walk away from it? Well, turns out that military operations on US soil are against the law except in very narrow circumstances (18 U.S. Code § 1385). It would be quite the needle to thread to get the military to accept orders for offensive action against US citizens on US soil. Here's a fun fact, when I was in they did a study that seemed like everyone in the military was required to participate. They asked us if so ordered, would we attack a US city/state? They've done this a few times I'm aware of and the results typically fall in the range of 30% to 50% saying they would not. Think about it, you got some guy from Kansas City taking a bomber through his childhood neighborhood and dropping ordinance, he's pretty much not going to do it. Nor would a soldier or marine go house to house on a search and destroy mission with the people he knew growing up inside. You would get people that refuse those orders and they would likely have the legal cover to do so since they are almost certainly illegal orders. But if they were legal, you still ain't getting soldiers and airmen to kill their neighbors, the only question is how many?

Let's just take the low end, 30% would refuse to kill their fellow citizens. Do you know what percentage starts degrading combat effectiveness. 30%. The range varies but with 50% to 69% of the military available and willing, the US military will be struggling or fail to accomplish objectives. They would start this fantasy civil war already teetering on the edge of combat effectiveness. The US has about 1.4 million people in its military. At 30% it would be down to just under a million. The US has over 17 million veterans, many are combat tested and trained on the same equipment the US military is using. If only 10% of them joined the war and fought, it would be essentially number parity or slight advantage to the non-government forces. Plus, they would be armed with the deadliest weapon ever to grace the battlefield, the AR15. Not to mention all the civilians that would join in.

Look, if the Taliban was able to force the US to surrender when they're using nothing more than rusty AKs and sketchy IEDs and have the training of a 5th-century goat herder, then a well trained and motivated force like the US veterans in the civilian population is going to be a hell of a thing to handle. It would make the first civil war seem tame by comparison.

That's the beauty of the second amendment, people like you cannot enslave others by force. If you try, the cost will be so high as to make success unpalatable.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: rightleft22 on June 08, 2022, 01:19:51 PM
Quote
Look, if the Taliban was able to force the US to surrender when they're using nothing more than rusty AKs and sketchy IEDs

Interesting take.
I might argue that US Militarily force failed to eliminate the Taliban and get the Afghanistan people to stand up against them.
At some level the people of Afghanistan were never and are not willing to fight the Taliban.

IF the US surrendered to was to the inevitable reality that it could not force (enslave) the Afghan people to defend themselves against the Taliban.

There are to many factors involved to make the claim that the Taliban was able to force the US to surrender when they only had to wait out the invaders/occupier's as has been the history of Afghanistan (if only we learned from history) - Afghan was a lost in 2003
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: rightleft22 on June 08, 2022, 01:31:04 PM
Quote
That's the beauty of the second amendment, people like you cannot enslave others by force. If you try, the cost will be so high as to make success unpalatable.

Not people like me but people not like me, those with the guns, get to?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: TheDrake on June 08, 2022, 01:41:24 PM
So your premise, Crunch, is that the Michigan Militia will be more likely to find it acceptable to kill our men and women in service of the Constitution than the reverse? Now there, I might not be able to argue with you. Fanatics are always more likely to dehumanize their enemies and kill them.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Tom on June 08, 2022, 01:47:25 PM
To be fair, there is a significant movement among conservatives to infiltrate both the police and the military so that, in the event of armed rebellion, individuals might coordinate their efforts and turn traitor at the most opportune time. I do not think that an armed rebellion against the American government would necessarily be doomed to fail, but it's not because I don't think military hardware would be necessary for victory; I think there's a non-zero chance that enough members of our active military are already within spitting distance of treason that the traitors would have access to hardware and would, as Crunch points out, be significantly more willing to use it.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Fenring on June 08, 2022, 02:47:17 PM
Look, if the Taliban was able to force the US to surrender

You keep resting your argument on this...but it's beyond weird that you have this idea that the Taliban forced the U.S. to do anything. The U.S. chose to leave, because it was no longer politically viable or useful to be there. Maybe the poppy fields weren't enough of a reason anymore. Whatever it was, the "force" of the Tablian was insignificant in the equation. If the U.S. had felt like staying there they easily could have. This is the basis of your idea that civilian resistance against government can be effective using nothing but assault rifles?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Crunch on June 08, 2022, 03:12:23 PM
So your premise, Crunch, is that the Michigan Militia will be more likely to find it acceptable to kill our men and women in service of the Constitution than the reverse?
No.  ::)
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Crunch on June 08, 2022, 03:18:37 PM
Look, if the Taliban was able to force the US to surrender

You keep resting your argument on this...but it's beyond weird that you have this idea that the Taliban forced the U.S. to do anything. The U.S. chose to leave, because it was no longer politically viable or useful to be there. Maybe the poppy fields weren't enough of a reason anymore. Whatever it was, the "force" of the Tablian was insignificant in the equation. If the U.S. had felt like staying there they easily could have. This is the basis of your idea that civilian resistance against government can be effective using nothing but assault rifles?

But you know what, they didn't. You can say the US "chose" to leave but the reality is the US did, in fact, surrender the battlespace to the Taliban - running away so quickly that they left billions in equipment behind. If the US "chose" to leave, they would have done so in a way that did not arm the enemy. The lesson of the Taliban and the North Vietnamese is that a small, outgunned, determined enemy can force the US to "choose" to surrender (or whatever euphemism you prefer). If it came down to it, how long do you think it would take for the US government to "choose" to exit a civil war against a much better trained, better armed, and equally determined enemy? I can tell you one thing, it won't be 20 years.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Fenring on June 08, 2022, 03:28:23 PM
But you know what, they didn't. You can say the US "chose" to leave but the reality is the US did, in fact, surrender the battlespace to the Taliban - running away so quickly that they left billions in equipment behind. If the US "chose" to leave, they would have done so in a way that did not arm the enemy.

So you think the hastily-planned exit was a result of conditions where - after 20 years of occupation - the Taliban suddenly achieved a superior position? Because the right-wing interpretation of events seems to typically be that Biden botched the exit in the (failed) attempt to make the exit a surprise. What advantage he could have gained by such a surprise I don't know, but it may have involved throwing allies under the bus. What any of that has to do with Taliban resistance or how this speaks to the 2nd amendment is beyond me.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: rightleft22 on June 08, 2022, 04:26:44 PM
Quote
But you know what, they didn't. You can say the US "chose" to leave but the reality is the US did, in fact, surrender the battlespace to the Taliban - running away so quickly that they left billions in equipment behind

I couldn't verify but heard suggestions that the Military delayed bringing back equipment (planning a proper withdraw) to force Badin's hand in staying longer and or assumed Biden would change his mind. That leaving that equipment behind benefited the military complex.... not that anything can be proved so the rule of charity states we ought to accept that the Military assumed the Afghan forces would hold, at least long enough to, withdraw in a orderly manner.

In my books the failure of the orderly withdraw lands fully on the Military
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Crunch on June 08, 2022, 04:30:25 PM
But you know what, they didn't. You can say the US "chose" to leave but the reality is the US did, in fact, surrender the battlespace to the Taliban - running away so quickly that they left billions in equipment behind. If the US "chose" to leave, they would have done so in a way that did not arm the enemy.

So you think the hastily-planned exit was a result of conditions where - after 20 years of occupation - the Taliban suddenly achieved a superior position? Because the right-wing interpretation of events seems to typically be that Biden botched the exit in the (failed) attempt to make the exit a surprise. What advantage he could have gained by such a surprise I don't know, but it may have involved throwing allies under the bus. What any of that has to do with Taliban resistance or how this speaks to the 2nd amendment is beyond me.

The point you’re avoiding is that a poorly armed and trained force defeated the US military. Now, you can try to blame that on the dementia addled “president “ - and be accurate in that assessment. But the bottom line is the taliban won. They got their country back and the US out. Nothing you say will change that fact.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Crunch on June 08, 2022, 04:31:18 PM
Quote
But you know what, they didn't. You can say the US "chose" to leave but the reality is the US did, in fact, surrender the battlespace to the Taliban - running away so quickly that they left billions in equipment behind

I couldn't verify but heard suggestions that the Military delayed bringing back equipment (planning a proper withdraw) to force Badin's hand in staying longer and or assumed Biden would change his mind. That leaving that equipment behind benefited the military complex.... not that anything can be proved so the rule of charity states we ought to accept that the Military assumed the Afghan forces would hold, at least long enough to, withdraw in a orderly manner.

In my books the failure of the orderly withdraw lands fully on the Military

And who was the commander in chief of the military during this debacle?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Fenring on June 08, 2022, 04:39:49 PM
The point you’re avoiding is that a poorly armed and trained force defeated the US military. Now, you can try to blame that on the dementia addled “president “ - and be accurate in that assessment. But the bottom line is the taliban won. They got their country back and the US out. Nothing you say will change that fact.

So according to your definition of "defeated", if I punch someone until they are just lying there, and eventually I get bored and walk away, they have "defeated me"?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: rightleft22 on June 08, 2022, 04:54:06 PM
Quote
The point you’re avoiding is that a poorly armed and trained force defeated the US military
Not the first time.

History clearly shows the occupation or aid or however you want to put it in a country that did not ask for it will fail more times then not.

Who was in charge when Afghan mission tipped over into inevitable failure - Bush. Why it took so long to admit that fact? I suspect money though the rule of charity forces me to answer more kindly
 - because we really arn't that smart. 
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: rightleft22 on June 08, 2022, 04:59:45 PM
I'm hearing the types of arguments Chruch is making more and more often. My thought is in perpetration of justification for violent action the next time a election does no go the way a group making such arguments goes.

But they would be taking such action for the sake of everyone's freedom - just as they define and enforce it to be for everyone. No contradictions as the government they setup would not be a government.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Crunch on June 08, 2022, 06:00:02 PM
The point you’re avoiding is that a poorly armed and trained force defeated the US military. Now, you can try to blame that on the dementia addled “president “ - and be accurate in that assessment. But the bottom line is the taliban won. They got their country back and the US out. Nothing you say will change that fact.

So according to your definition of "defeated", if I punch someone until they are just lying there, and eventually I get bored and walk away, they have "defeated me"?

Nope. Wanna try again?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Crunch on June 08, 2022, 06:01:17 PM
I'm hearing the types of arguments Chruch is making more and more often. My thought is in perpetration of justification for violent action the next time a election does no go the way a group making such arguments goes.

But they would be taking such action for the sake of everyone's freedom - just as they define and enforce it to be for everyone. No contradictions as the government they setup would not be a government.

Incredible you say this with the assassination attempt on kavanaugh. Completely tone deaf.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Crunch on June 08, 2022, 06:02:52 PM
Quote
The point you’re avoiding is that a poorly armed and trained force defeated the US military
Not the first time.

History clearly shows the occupation or aid or however you want to put it in a country that did not ask for it will fail more times then not.

Who was in charge when Afghan mission tipped over into inevitable failure - Bush. Why it took so long to admit that fact? I suspect money though the rule of charity forces me to answer more kindly
 - because we really arn't that smart.

Has to be Bush. Right? Can’t be Obama, no way! It was 20 years and one single guy from 12 years ago is the reason. Nothing anyone could’ve done, the outcome inevitable. Jesus
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Fenring on June 08, 2022, 06:17:51 PM
The point you’re avoiding is that a poorly armed and trained force defeated the US military. Now, you can try to blame that on the dementia addled “president “ - and be accurate in that assessment. But the bottom line is the taliban won. They got their country back and the US out. Nothing you say will change that fact.

So according to your definition of "defeated", if I punch someone until they are just lying there, and eventually I get bored and walk away, they have "defeated me"?

Nope. Wanna try again?

I would rate your reading comprehension...of your own statement, to be very weak if you can't see how this conclusion follows. You claim the Taliban "defeated" the U.S., and 'defeated' according to you means the U.S. decided to leave. It's simply a tautological statement, and if you can't see that then as Tom has pointed out it seems unlikely you are interested in seeing it.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Tom on June 08, 2022, 06:57:09 PM
Just in case not everyone's read the news: the assassination attempt on Kavanaugh consisted of one guy from California with a Glock, a knife, and some "tactical" webbing who took a taxi to Kavanaugh's house, walked around the block, and then called the authorities on himself.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: jc44 on June 09, 2022, 06:07:08 AM
The point you’re avoiding is that a poorly armed and trained force defeated the US military. Now, you can try to blame that on the dementia addled “president “ - and be accurate in that assessment. But the bottom line is the taliban won. They got their country back and the US out. Nothing you say will change that fact.

So according to your definition of "defeated", if I punch someone until they are just lying there, and eventually I get bored and walk away, they have "defeated me"?

Nope. Wanna try again?

I would rate your reading comprehension...of your own statement, to be very weak if you can't see how this conclusion follows. You claim the Taliban "defeated" the U.S., and 'defeated' according to you means the U.S. decided to leave. It's simply a tautological statement, and if you can't see that then as Tom has pointed out it seems unlikely you are interested in seeing it.
As I see it

Initially the USA (+ allies, but its an American driven operation) successfully drove the Taliban from power
Then for many years they suppressed the Taliban.  They found it impossible to eliminate them.
There were very inconsistent attempts at aid / nation building. This phase was generally a failure.
After seeing no end point to the operation and having suffered a political change that tends towards isolationism they go "Can't be bothered any more" and withdraw.
Everyone expects the abandoned Afghan government to fall in a year or so.
Everyone (on all sides) is surprised when it only takes a month or so.

So assuming that the objective was to leave Afghanistan a stable West leaning state then something failed (and if it wasn't what was the objective? revenge?). Now whether you think it was the Govt or the Military or both probably depends on your politics and how much you conflate the Govt with the Military and whether or not you think it should have been possible to eliminate the Taliban and/or build a functional national government.

Now at this point does defeat equate with "failure to achieve objectives"? Probably not (there is a gap between defeat and victory), but its close enough for a politician, and certainly close enough if you want an argument.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: TheDrake on June 09, 2022, 07:37:15 AM
Just in case not everyone's read the news: the assassination attempt on Kavanaugh consisted of one guy from California with a Glock, a knife, and some "tactical" webbing who took a taxi to Kavanaugh's house, walked around the block, and then called the authorities on himself.

Let's see. Planning an assassination, armed reconnaissance of the target's home, sounds a lot like the Whitmer situation. This guy deserves to go to jail just like they do. "The libs" are no more behind this guy or approving of him than most conservatives are of Fox and his friends.

Meanwhile, we now have the distraction of discussing the Taliban, which has nothing to do with a hypothetical armed insurrection within the United States.

I wonder why our resident revolutionaries don't want to define when it is that they plan to start shooting at the National Guard? Are the plans already underway? If midterms don't go the way everyone is predicting for Republicans, they rise up to defeat the evil Soros who wants to burden us with universal healthcare?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: rightleft22 on June 09, 2022, 10:14:13 AM
Quote
The point you’re avoiding is that a poorly armed and trained force defeated the US military
Not the first time.

History clearly shows the occupation or aid or however you want to put it in a country that did not ask for it will fail more times then not.

Who was in charge when Afghan mission tipped over into inevitable failure - Bush. Why it took so long to admit that fact? I suspect money though the rule of charity forces me to answer more kindly
 - because we really arn't that smart.

Has to be Bush. Right? Can’t be Obama, no way! It was 20 years and one single guy from 12 years ago is the reason. Nothing anyone could’ve done, the outcome inevitable. Jesus

When Bush took his eyes off Afghanistan and onto Iraq the Taliban were given breathing space to regroup when they were about to fully collapse.  Afghanistan became a backwater engagement and concern .Years latter there was a attempt at nation building - to create a Afghanistan into a image of the US without taking into account the Afghan people as people.
Bush Administration blew it, Obama Administration inherited a bad situation and allowed it to continue knowing it was likely a lost cause  for that they are responsible. Trump Administration knew it was a lost cause and Trump wanted out for which he ought to be given credit. Sadly his deal with the Taliban was a death sentence for the Afghan government and he continued to listen to the Hawks who kept delaying any exit. For not following his gut in this situation he is responsible. Biden said he would leave, the military hawks didn't fully sport that, and still he did it and ripped the bandage off.  A mess all around and blame for everyone.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: yossarian22c on June 09, 2022, 11:00:08 AM
...
 Sadly his deal with the Taliban was a death sentence for the Afghan government and he continued to listen to the Hawks who kept delaying any exit. For not following his gut in this situation he is responsible. Biden said he would leave, the military hawks didn't fully sport that, and still he did it and ripped the bandage off.  A mess all around and blame for everyone.

You don't get it. Trump's deal with the Taliban was Perfect (tm)  ::). Afghanistan was a land of milk, honey, and poppy flowers until the evil Joe Biden ruined it all by delaying the American withdrawal by 3 months.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Crunch on June 09, 2022, 05:13:56 PM
The point you’re avoiding is that a poorly armed and trained force defeated the US military. Now, you can try to blame that on the dementia addled “president “ - and be accurate in that assessment. But the bottom line is the taliban won. They got their country back and the US out. Nothing you say will change that fact.

So according to your definition of "defeated", if I punch someone until they are just lying there, and eventually I get bored and walk away, they have "defeated me"?

Nope. Wanna try again?

I would rate your reading comprehension...of your own statement, to be very weak if you can't see how this conclusion follows. You claim the Taliban "defeated" the U.S., and 'defeated' according to you means the U.S. decided to leave. It's simply a tautological statement, and if you can't see that then as Tom has pointed out it seems unlikely you are interested in seeing it.

JFC  ::)
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: TheDrake on June 09, 2022, 05:35:14 PM
Quote
“I did, I spoke to the leader of the Taliban today, we had a good conversation,” Trump told reporters as he left the White House, adding that he and Taliban leaders “agreed there is no violence, we don’t want violence.”

If only Mike Pence had refused to certify the electoral count, we'd have perfect relations with a free Afghanistan. Trump surely would have guaranteed us victory, just like I wrote about in my MAGA fan fiction!
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: jc44 on June 10, 2022, 05:10:34 AM
Quote
“I did, I spoke to the leader of the Taliban today, we had a good conversation,” Trump told reporters as he left the White House, adding that he and Taliban leaders “agreed there is no violence, we don’t want violence.”

If only Mike Pence had refused to certify the electoral count, we'd have perfect relations with a free Afghanistan. Trump surely would have guaranteed us victory, just like I wrote about in my MAGA fan fiction!
To be fair to Trump there was surprisingly little violence - the Taliban just took over.  Maybe that was the deal?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: LetterRip on June 10, 2022, 10:41:18 AM
Trumps deal with the Taliban is that they wouldn't attack American soldiers in exchange for the US leaving Afghanistan.  The Taliban negotiated with the Afghanistan military officers to have the officers give the Taliban all of the weapons and not try and stop the Taliban in exchange for money.  Since the officers didn't have any loyalty to Afghanistan, but only tribal loyalties - and the tribes didn't generally oppose the Taliban, these officers didn't have any qualms with doing so.  The 'bribe the officers' trick was done by the British many years prior in Afghanistan, so it had precedent for being an effective tactic.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: cherrypoptart on June 10, 2022, 02:57:35 PM
So this was all known?

And Biden did what he did anyway?

If that was the deal, it seems like Biden should have made a new deal because that deal was really dumb.

"Alrighty then Taliban, we'll leave and give you Afghanistan and in return you agree not to hit us in the butt on the way out."

So Biden knew all that and he said yeah, well a deal's a deal so we don't want to look like welchers now do we?

If Trump knew that what happened was what was going to happen then it makes perfect sense not to pull out, so he didn't. Maybe he was rope a doping the Taliban to buy time and security for a while. In any case, Biden going along with that deal is still Biden's fault because he could have set his own conditions but chose not to, for instance we'll get out of the country but if the Taliban stays out in the tribal areas but if they try to topple the government then we'll surge back in. But nooooo... Biden made it clear that we're getting out come hell or high water and to hell with Afghanistan. That's on Biden.

-------------------------------

Bringing it back to school shootings (somehow), the Taliban's official policy is to shoot little girls who are going to school in the head like they did to Nobel Peace Prize winner Malala.  And the Democrats are okay with giving the same guys who did that control of the whole country. Kind of like how the police weren't willing to go into a dangerous situation to save those children (unless it was one of their children in there), Biden felt no differently about the girls in schools in Afghanistan. Biden gave the whole country to an organization whose official policy is school shootings.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Tom on June 10, 2022, 03:37:42 PM
Setting to one side the obviously inflammatory, stupid "Democrats don't care if governments shoot girls in the face" crap, cherry, can I confirm that your official position is that Biden is ultimately to blame for the negative consequences of any action Trump and/or his administration took that Biden's government was not willing or able to reverse?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: cherrypoptart on June 10, 2022, 05:56:06 PM
Yes?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: cherrypoptart on June 10, 2022, 06:00:07 PM
It's not so much that Democrats don't care as it is that they aren't going to do anything effective to improve the situation on school shootings either here or abroad.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Tom on June 10, 2022, 06:30:56 PM
Would you also clarify: if Biden's administration attempts to reverse one of Trump's actions, but is prevented by Congress, and that action has negative consequences, do you believe that Biden or Congress is more to blame (understanding, of course, that Trump cannot be blamed even if it was originally his policy)?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: cherrypoptart on June 11, 2022, 07:58:04 AM
So we're just going to play the blame game?

Who's a fault is important though because until people take responsibility for their actions, and until they are held responsible for their actions, we're not going to see positive change.

I suppose nobody wants "their guy" to be responsible for the things that go wrong because if it's ever admitted then it affects the entire agenda including hurting the things they are doing right.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Tom on June 11, 2022, 10:19:03 AM
Yes, it is very important to me that people recognize that the vast majority of things that Trump did were in fact hugely bad, not only because I really believe that a certain level of corruption genuinely should be punished but also because administrative dysfunction at the highest level of government legitimately causes problems that can take decades to fix. Blaming Biden for the fact that it will take many, many years to fix all of Trump's mistakes winds up disguising the cause(s) of the negative effects we're working to minimize, which grants undeserved cover to exactly those policies that deserve to be recognized as deeply flawed.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: cherrypoptart on June 11, 2022, 11:02:27 AM
And the other side sees things in exactly the opposite way. Most of the major problems we're experiencing now are caused by Biden undoing the things that Trump was getting right. I could list them all again and maybe I will but it's obvious we'd just be going around and around in circles.

I will admit that on school shootings I haven't seen anything from the Republican side that would help very much and it seems like they're pretty much resigned to them being the new normal a lot like the Democrat side seems to be resigned to high levels of crime being preferable to doing what it would take to lower it. The cures are apparently worse than the disease, getting rid of the 2nd Amendment and tough justice, respectively.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: TheDrake on June 17, 2022, 07:26:08 PM
This guy is the type of person that thinks there should be an organized and trained militia to overthrow the US government (https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/veq2up/christian_nationalist_talks_about_forming_a/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)

I find this kind of person terrifying, because he comes off calm and rational while he describes the need to "take back" the republic. It is going to be people like him that will bundle up in the back of a u-haul one day to strike a blow for freedom. Good thing he won't have any trouble getting the kinds of weapons he'll want.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: rightleft22 on June 24, 2022, 01:07:14 PM
Supreme Court ruling expands US gun rights https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61915237
US Senate passes first gun control bill in decades https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61919752

Do we laugh or cry?

My feeling is that the Supreme Court ruling ends the matter, at least for the next 20+ years. There will be no reform
Time for those who wanted reform to recognize they have lost and to let it go and focus mental health aspects which the right won't want to pay for.... unless it comes with guns.   

I am not optimistic for the future.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: yossarian22c on June 24, 2022, 01:13:39 PM
Supreme Court ruling expands US gun rights https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61915237
US Senate passes first gun control bill in decades https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61919752

Do we laugh or cry?

My feeling is that the Supreme Court ruling ends the matter, at least for the next 20+ years. There will be no reform
Time for those who wanted reform to recognize they have lost and to let it go and focus mental health aspects which the right won't want to pay for.... unless it comes with guns.   

I am not optimistic for the future.

Wonder how far the court would go? Do 16 year old's have the right to purchase and carry a gun? Can they carry it to school? Can we only stop and arrest them after they've started shooting people?

Can I carry an AR-15 with an expanded magazine into the supreme court building? I'm guessing the answer to this last question will remain No. Not sure about the rest.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Wayward Son on June 24, 2022, 01:26:15 PM
Quote
Time for those who wanted reform to recognize they have lost and to let it go...

Are you saying that people who have loved ones who are killed should "let it go?"  That those who are might not have been killed if some stricter laws were passed should say, "Oh well, too bad, so sad.  The 2nd Amendment is so much more important than my child's life.  It's all for the best in the end"?

I don't think that is an option. :(
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: rightleft22 on June 24, 2022, 01:42:26 PM
Quote
Time for those who wanted reform to recognize they have lost and to let it go...

Are you saying that people who have loved ones who are killed should "let it go?"  That those who are might not have been killed if some stricter laws were passed should say, "Oh well, too bad, so sad.  The 2nd Amendment is so much more important than my child's life.  It's all for the best in the end"?

I don't think that is an option. :(

I don't know... Its been 20+ years I've paid any attention to this issue and nothing has changed in fact things have gone backwards. I don't see anything changing in my life time.
When do you acknowledge your pissing in the wind and change direction.  Focus on change that has some possibility of... who am I kidding
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: yossarian22c on June 24, 2022, 01:43:59 PM
Quote
Time for those who wanted reform to recognize they have lost and to let it go...
...
I don't think that is an option. :(

The only option for gun restrictions is probably expanding the court. Any legislation that is likely to be effective is going to be struck down by this SC. Not sure what the options are. Its just bad. Work your ass off for 10 years to raise the age from 18 to 21 or ban expanded capacity magazines. Then have the SC strike it down and expand gun rights 10 months later. Sounds depressing.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Wayward Son on June 24, 2022, 02:08:01 PM
When the lives of yourself and those you love are on the line, "letting it go" is not an option.  Because how do you "let go" the preventable death of a loved one? ;)

Obviously, what we need is a Constitutional Amendment to clarify the restrictions on possessing a firearm.

Which means, of course, that a lot, lot more people have to die before we can get to that place.   :'(  (Stock market tip: invest in funeral homes.)

But when it's your life on the line, there is no justification to "let go."  You go down swinging because you have nothing to lose.
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: rightleft22 on June 24, 2022, 02:28:05 PM
"letting go" can mean a lot of things
How far do you go?  Do you hold on so tight it becomes your identity? So attached to a outcome that what's left of ones life becomes miserable?
Could think long term plan and work the system like the Gun Lobby/GOP did... but the DNC doesn't do that kind of thinking/planning. Could I guess put some energy behind that.
And then thier is the insanity question of doing the same things and expecting a different outcome. Letting go could be the letting go of what isn't working.

Polls show a large majority want gun reform but they don't vote that way. A minority of those Pro Life, Pro Gun.... they vote that way full stop. That could be something to think about.

Still the left does love its moral outrage though (as does the right) maybe we don't want things to change. Unless its our loved ones.... but what are the odds..
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: TheDrake on June 24, 2022, 03:28:27 PM
Supreme Court ruling expands US gun rights https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61915237
US Senate passes first gun control bill in decades https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61919752

Do we laugh or cry?

My feeling is that the Supreme Court ruling ends the matter, at least for the next 20+ years. There will be no reform
Time for those who wanted reform to recognize they have lost and to let it go and focus mental health aspects which the right won't want to pay for.... unless it comes with guns.   

I am not optimistic for the future.

Wonder how far the court would go? Do 16 year old's have the right to purchase and carry a gun? Can they carry it to school? Can we only stop and arrest them after they've started shooting people?

Can I carry an AR-15 with an expanded magazine into the supreme court building? I'm guessing the answer to this last question will remain No. Not sure about the rest.

I guess it means that the people protesting at Brett's house can be fully armed now?
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: TheDrake on June 24, 2022, 04:21:53 PM
I suppose the states that don't like the ruling on 2nd Amendment can render it void by seceding. Because they ain't gonna get any amendment through.

Quote
One troubling sign of our deteriorating civic mood is the shocking breadth of support for secession in the United States. At a time of widespread polarization—where people are arguing over a supposedly stolen election, vaccine mandates, mask-wearing, and the reality of climate change—a September 2020 Hofstra University poll found that “nearly 40 percent of likely voters would support state secession if their candidate loses.” This was followed by a YouGov and Bright Line Watch survey last June that revealed that 37% of Americans supported a “willingness to secede” when asked: “Would you support or oppose [your state] seceding from the United States to join a new union with [list of states in new union]?” Support for doing this was highest in the South and among Republicans.

But liberals are interested, too. In a July 2021 University of Virginia poll, 41% of Biden supporters (as well as 52% of Trump voters) were at least somewhat in agreement with the idea “that it’s time to split the country, favoring blue/red states seceding from the union.”

In that survey, two very different groups were open to such an action: those living in conservative Southern states, who wanted to avoid liberal dictates from the national government, and people on the West Coast and Northeast, who favored enacting legislation favored by liberal voters.

If the inconceivable scenario of secession somehow came to fruition, it is an open question whether the United States would end up with two or many countries. Since political polarization plays out unevenly across the nation, one could imagine a situation similar to Europe where a number of separate entities would emerge, including a contingent of Southern states, the Northeast, the heartland, the West Coast, and rural parts of Oregon and Washington joining nearby states.
[/list]
Title: Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
Post by: Crunch on June 24, 2022, 05:45:02 PM
Supreme Court ruling expands US gun rights https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61915237
US Senate passes first gun control bill in decades https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61919752

Do we laugh or cry?

My feeling is that the Supreme Court ruling ends the matter, at least for the next 20+ years. There will be no reform
Time for those who wanted reform to recognize they have lost and to let it go and focus mental health aspects which the right won't want to pay for.... unless it comes with guns.   

I am not optimistic for the future.

Wonder how far the court would go? Do 16 year old's have the right to purchase and carry a gun? Can they carry it to school? Can we only stop and arrest them after they've started shooting people?

Can I carry an AR-15 with an expanded magazine into the supreme court building? I'm guessing the answer to this last question will remain No. Not sure about the rest.

I guess it means that the people protesting at Brett's house can be fully armed now?
Well, they’re breaking the law so…