After the eighth school shooting in seven weeks – some gun control proposals

Appreciation for freedom is hardly mental instability.

 

I am not aware of the people in these countries having a right to have guns for self defense.

What happens if they want to carry a gun when they go out in public?

What kind of guns are covered in the Mexican and Guatemalan constitutions?

You don't understand what freedom means. Needing a gun has nothing to do with anything.

A free person merely decides that he wants to have a gun (one that is powerful enough to defend against criminals), and he goes to the store and buys that gun.

There is no worry about "need".

 

I think your viewpoint is pretty naive

Guns are already regulated in this country
You cant just walk into a store and buy a gun, you have to pass a background check first

As illustrated by the gun violence in this country, not everyone should own a gun and not everyone is capable of being a responsible gun owner .

Hence regulations

But the regulations we already have on the books arent working, hence the call for tighter regulations.

 

The background check system is not supposed to prevent normal law-abiding people from having guns.

If it did, it would violate the Second Amendment and be unconstitutional.

 

Right, and neither will tighter regulation. Which is why its so confusing that gun owners are freaking out about their guns being taken away

 

Yes, I presented the list. You believe that the multiple weapons used in some instances were listed because they weren't used. No one can take away your right to believe that, but no one is obligated to follow that kind of reasoning, either.

The AR-15 has been touted as the weapon of choice for mass shooters. As we've seen, that claim has been embraced by the gullible masses to the extent that they'll repeat it on forums, providing links to sources that make the claim, but which actually fail to prove it. And when asked how many times an AR-15 has been used in school shootings, another poster besides yourself linked to a source that listed 15 school shooting. The only problem was that the list showed only 3 such shootings. So in your attempt to demonize a rifle, you brought a list of shootings having not much to do with what you thought it did, and you didn't even know it. My list was well researched. Your criticism of it based on nothing. And in fact, when the AR-15 has been shown to NOT be the weapon of choice for mass shooters, and has been involved in only THREE of the hundreds of school shootings since 1984, you believe that by saying it is more destructive than pistols, you have changed the facts of the matter.

 

You should get out more! Have you been to Australia? You can do anything there you can do here except buy and own guns.

Not only ethnocentrism but provincialism. I suspect in Toggle's case, some heavy ideological blinders, as well.

 

Yeah, I know what eronomics is and how it relates to a gun. But if you have no data showing that a pistol grip has an evil influence on a shooter, or that the lack of one results in missed shots during a mass shooting, then your opinion of them in the context of this discussion is meaningless. Same with barrel shrouds. People go to the rifle range to do some target shooting, and the barrel gets hot. So they use a barrel shroud. You must believe that if there were no such thing as a barrel shroud, would-be mass shooters would be thwarted. That's nonsensical thinking based on the hysteria of the uninformed masses.

Another poster hit this right on the head when they said: "When you think your view is the only correct view, it's called ethnocentrism."

To show the fickle nature of the uninformed masses, consider the case of a diet-aid product that was on the market in the late 70s called Ayds. It was doing fine. And then came the disease called AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome). Sales dropped like a rock, and despite changing the name of the product, the product failed because of its name. Such hysterical and uninformed masses are the propagandists' dream come true. To illustrate that point, consider some posters in this thread who decided to provide links to information from propagandists that they thought supported their claims about the AR-15 being the weapon of choice of mass shooters, and being involved in an overwhelming number of mass shootings. Even after I compiled and posted a list of mass shootings, the weapons used and the number of casualties in those shootings that disproved those sources, the uninformed refused to be informed, and they continued on with their debunked claims.

 

That is incorrect. A number of the regulations that are proposed would be outright violations of the Second Amendment.

That means they aren't free.

 

These fears are completely irrational. You're far more likely to be killed by an automobile than a firearm.

 

In other words, the ability to own guns is so important it's the sina qua non of freedom? That seems pretty extreme and quirky, to the point of fanaticism. I see no sense continuing to converse with an ideologue who sees to believe that guns are the thing of greatest value in this world.

 

But usually the killings by automobile are accidental. It makes sense to take special action in the criminal justice system to go after intentional killers.

 

I would use "a" rather than "the".

"The" implies that it is the only essential condition. I'd say there are other essential conditions as well.

Not really. This is what freedom has always been.

Converse or not. I don't intend to stop loving freedom.

 

Join the club. It's cozy here.

 

Why does that matter? The victims are just as dead.

I don't think anyone is arguing that murderers should not be prosecuted.

 

Going for the car comparison again eh?

A couple of differences -

you're more likely to die in a mass shooting in America than anywhere else on the planet. As illustrated by other countries, mass shootings are entirely preventable .

Being a victim of a mass shooting may be statistically improbable but it is still a possibility in the US despite being preventable

There is an element of lack of control and power in a mass shooting. I can drive defensively, safely, sober, in a car with a good safety rating. I can wear a seatbelt and drive at a safe speed. I cant control other drivers but I can limit my own risks.

I cant control the actions of a mass murderer in any way.

Except by ensuring they cant get their hands on a gun in the first place.

 

Actually that's not true. You could carry a gun yourself, and defend yourself if someone tries to murder you.

That said, a lot of gun rights advocates would not object to red flag legislation if it respected people's due process rights.

 

I dont want to carry a gun to prevent someone from murdering me. Not everyone likes guns or feels comfortable carrying one.

Why would any reasonable person want to live like that when they can prevent mass murders from happening in the first place.

In response to your last statement, here's the tactic I commonly see :

Gun control advocate: I want stricter background checks, I want to close private sale loopholes, I want a national gun registry

2nd amendment advocate: you want gun control? Thats in violation of my 2nd amendment rights! You cant take my guns

Gun control advocates most definitely are suggesting reasonable and constitutional gun control but gun advocates arent listening and arent open to reasonable suggestions. Thats the crux of the issue really

 

Prosecution is so after the fact.

 

You're worshiping a false god. The Second Amendment is a sacred cow. Lots of countries don't have it, and the people live free and happy lives.