School shooting: but don't mention guns!

[BStrong]

Wait a minute! The Second Amendment says nothing about firearms. It says arms. Since we can't have nukes, hand grenades, tanks, etc., then it is already acceptable to ban the population from having these things. Thus, it is clear that the Second Amendment was never intended to allow citizens to have access to all weapons.

And please, can you stop making the ultra lame "other things kill, so why don't we ban them too" argument? Have you ever read a story where a "carman" drove a car into a school and ran over 28 people, killing them?

Before embarrassing yourself further, why don't you, and anyone else not up to speed on the actual facts, read this information. Here are links for the google challenged.

Heller:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Macdonald:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

Recent 7th circut court ruling (Moore v Madigan) finds Illinois sate ban on conceald carry unconstitutional:

http://www.nraila.org/media/10814375/stevensopinion.pdf

And ftr, everything short of WMD is legal for civilian ownership under the National Firearms Act of 1934 with proper licensing.

Like tanks?

This is one mans collection:

http://www.mvtf.org/

ETA - The National Firearms act, 1934

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/nfa/

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Yes, we have the freedom to make a different choice.

Do guns save lives? Undeniably, they do. Do they also take innocent lives? Again, yes, undeniably.

Pithy binary statements are also fairly useless.

Automobiles? Yes, to both questions.

Backyard pools? Yes, to both questions.

Wha?

 

[zeggman]

Have you ever read a story where a "carman" drove a car into a school and ran over 28 people, killing them?

There are dozens of stories, differing only in place and number.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/car-rams-crowd-in-france-town-injuring-17-1.246948

 

[zeggman]

In 2010, 70% of all homicides in the U.S. were caused by firearms.

You are wrong.

I said guns save lives. Your rebuttal is a non-sequitur.

 

[BStrong]

I call it the "Constitution Freak-Out". How dare anyone try to take away American's 2nd Amendment rights! The Founding Fathers! Blah, blah, blah....

The Constitution, when written, allowed slavery, women couldn't vote and there was a whole bunch of other horrible things in there....but hey, it was 1787.

The best thing about the Framers is that they drafted a living Constitution, one that could be amended as time went by. Could anyone argue today that the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage) is a bad idea just because it wasn't in the original document?

We need to move beyond the 2nd Amendment, we have live in the world we have now. I'm certain that Washington, Hamilton, Franklin and Madison would agree with me.

Assuming facts not in evidence.

We do know that at the time the document was written there were different levels of firearms technology available, specifically ignition type (Fuse v. matchlock v. flintlock) and multi barrel battery guns and large caliber cannon and mortar were well known.

In the original documents both in state Constitutions and the DoI and eventually the BoR, there is not even discussion of limiting civilians to less effective technology or smaller caliber weapons or limiting civilians from possessing cannon, mortars etc.

 

[zeggman]

And I ask again, in what way? What way are you allowed to express your freedom of speech that I am not?

On 20 April 2010, police arrested Dale McAlpine, a Christian preacher, of Workington in Cumbria, for saying that homosexual conduct was a sin. On 14 May 2010, the Crown decided not to prosecute McAlpine.[10]

On 4 March 2010, a jury returned a verdict of guilty against Harry Taylor, who was charged under Part 4A of the Public Order Act 1986. Taylor was charged because he left anti-religious cartoons in the prayer-room of Liverpool's John Lennon Airport on three occasions in 2008. The airport chaplain, who was insulted, offended, and alarmed by the cartoons, called the police.[11][12][13] On 23 April 2010, Judge Charles James of Liverpool Crown Court sentenced Taylor to a six-month term of imprisonment suspended for two years, made him subject to a five-year Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) (which bans him from carrying religiously offensive material in a public place), ordered him to perform 100 hours of unpaid work, and ordered him to pay £250 costs. Taylor was convicted of similar offences in 2006.[14]

On 8 December 2009, Mr Justice Richard Clancy, sitting at Liverpool Magistrates' Court, acquitted Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang, hoteliers, of charges under the Public Order Act 1986 and under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The Vogelensangs were charged after a guest at their hotel, Ericka Tazi, complained that the Vogelenzangs had insulted her after she appeared in a hijab.[15]

On 2 September 2006, Stephen Green was arrested in Cardiff for distributing pamphlets which called sexual activity between members of the same sex a sin. On 28 September 2006, the Crown advised Cardiff Magistrates Court that it would not proceed with the prosecution.[16][17]

On 13 October 2001, Harry Hammond, an evangelist, was arrested and charged under section 5 of the Public Order Act (1986) because he had displayed to people in Bournemouth a large sign bearing the words "Jesus Gives Peace, Jesus is Alive, Stop Immorality, Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism, Jesus is Lord". In April 2002, a magistrate convicted Hammond, fined him £300, and ordered him to pay costs of £395.[18][19][20]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom

None of these arrests/convictions would have happened in the United States.

 

[jimbob]

this is interesting:

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/weaponstab.cfm
and my graphing of it.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1449450cdc9de2aa62.jpg[/qimg]

About 70% of US homicides are committed with a gun or handgun.

The US homicide rate is about 3.5 times the UK rate, so the non-gun homicide rate is roughly equivalent.

In other words, non-gun fatal violence is roughly equivalent, not far less than other countries.

This article seems to show a very different picture. It shows a much higher overall rate of homicide in the US. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, though.

I think it is saying the same thing:

3.5 times the rate for a roughly equivalent country is much higher in my book.

 

[joesixpack]

Except not all crimes are aquisitive. For example, assault and/or murder can be the "desired" end result, not the byproduct of attempted theft.

I don't think it would be illogical to want a weapon to defend oneself with in that case.

 

[Alt+F4]

Assuming facts not in evidence.

Indeed....do you think in the flintlock/musket age the Framers would have been ok with me now having a small nuclear device in the trunk of my car? How about a grenade launcher that can shoot down police helicopters?

The Framers were brilliant in their understanding that civilians need weapons to overthrow a tyrannically government. They would be disgusted to know how easy, and for what purpose, we have weapons today.

 

[BStrong]

Indeed....do you think in the flintlock/musket age the Framers would have been ok with me now having a small nuclear device in the trunk of my car? How about a grenade launcher that can shoot down police helicopters?

The Framers were brilliant in their understanding that civilians need weapons to overthrow a tyrannically government. They would be disgusted to know how easy, and for what purpose, we have weapons today.

Again, assuming facts.

The strawman of nuke this and nerve gas that is not illuminating or furthering the discussion.

The SC has ruled: an individual has a right to have a firearm "in common use" for protection, and that right is incorporated to the states, meaning the states do not have the right to deprive an individual from that basic right (they did not invoke strict liability, which would have invalidated just about every GC law but individual cases will need to be litagated one-by-one) and there have already been several laws revoked by the legislatures of states and municipalities in anticipation of suit.

If someone wants to talk about background checks and waiting periods, that is workable and would probably be upheld (within reason - 6 months probably wouldn't cut it) and are worth talking about.

Blanket bans on firearms "in common use" (and nothing is more common now than the AR platform) isn't going to fly.

Read the court decisions at the above links I posted for yourself.

 

[Alt+F4]

The SC has ruled: an individual has a right to have a firearm "in common use" for protection, and that right is incorporated to the states, meaning the states do not have the right to deprive an individual from that basic right (they did not invoke strict liability, which would have invalidated just about every GC law but individual cases will need to be litagated one-by-one) and there have already been several laws revoked by the legislatures of states and municipalities in anticipation of suit.

I hate, hate, hate guns and I think the SC is wrong in their interpretation of the Second Amendment. With that said, we all know that guns in the U.S. aren't going to go away...ever. So I think the conversation should be more about mental illness than guns.

 

[ServiceSoon]

I don't understand. What was he charged with? What was he convicted of? Jail is not for post-sentenced incarceration, prison is.

The charges were sending indecent and highly offensive messages. The sentence was a few months. In the same article a man was sentenced to pay the gov 100# and a woman 100# because he racially insulted her.

Another chap in a very similar situation walked away with just a fine after apologizing.

 

[wasapi]

I haven't researched gun laws enough to give an intelligent response on the subject. Of course I could share my personal opinion, but it doesn't matter in the scope of things.

It seems that in the past few days, I have mostly thought about one thing: The parents of 20 little innocent children will never hug them again. Their precious little ones were too mutilated to be identified by them other then photos.

Who says hell doesn't exist . . .

 

[ServiceSoon]

I hate, hate, hate guns and I think the SC is wrong in their interpretation of the Second Amendment. With that said, we all know that guns in the U.S. aren't going to go away...ever. So I think the conversation should be more about mental illness than guns.

Why do you hate hate guns? P.S. I admit to trying alt + f4. I was not satisfied with the result, but it's all in good fun

 

[BitterChimp]

It's simply easier to talk about gun control than it is to talk about mental health and the decay of our culture.

Here's a thought, everyone. Before you jump on a pulpit so you can wet your twisted political knives on the bones of children, let's not forget that some families will never be whole again. There's 27 homes that have Christmas presents that'll never get opened, parents who will outlive their kids.

I weep for the families of the victims, the survivors, and our society as a whole.

 

[DavidJames]

Why do you hate hate guns?

While others seem to think meh, BFD, I find mass murder of children an unacceptable consequence of people wanting to play with their guns.

 

[Ashles]

On 20 April 2010, police arrested Dale McAlpine, a Christian preacher, of Workington in Cumbria, for saying that homosexual conduct was a sin. On 14 May 2010, the Crown decided not to prosecute McAlpine.[10]

On 4 March 2010, a jury returned a verdict of guilty against Harry Taylor, who was charged under Part 4A of the Public Order Act 1986. Taylor was charged because he left anti-religious cartoons in the prayer-room of Liverpool's John Lennon Airport on three occasions in 2008. The airport chaplain, who was insulted, offended, and alarmed by the cartoons, called the police.[11][12][13] On 23 April 2010, Judge Charles James of Liverpool Crown Court sentenced Taylor to a six-month term of imprisonment suspended for two years, made him subject to a five-year Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) (which bans him from carrying religiously offensive material in a public place), ordered him to perform 100 hours of unpaid work, and ordered him to pay £250 costs. Taylor was convicted of similar offences in 2006.[14]

On 8 December 2009, Mr Justice Richard Clancy, sitting at Liverpool Magistrates' Court, acquitted Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang, hoteliers, of charges under the Public Order Act 1986 and under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The Vogelensangs were charged after a guest at their hotel, Ericka Tazi, complained that the Vogelenzangs had insulted her after she appeared in a hijab.[15]

On 2 September 2006, Stephen Green was arrested in Cardiff for distributing pamphlets which called sexual activity between members of the same sex a sin. On 28 September 2006, the Crown advised Cardiff Magistrates Court that it would not proceed with the prosecution.[16][17]

On 13 October 2001, Harry Hammond, an evangelist, was arrested and charged under section 5 of the Public Order Act (1986) because he had displayed to people in Bournemouth a large sign bearing the words "Jesus Gives Peace, Jesus is Alive, Stop Immorality, Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism, Jesus is Lord". In April 2002, a magistrate convicted Hammond, fined him £300, and ordered him to pay costs of £395.[18][19][20]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom

None of these arrests/convictions would have happened in the United States.

Any of those you particularly want to do? Me neither.

I hardly feel like my freedom of speech is infringed by not being able to do any of the above.
I seriously worry about anyone who would.

Judging by many, many responses to the Westboro Baptists it seems many of your countrymen might actually prefer a little less bigoted hate speech being allowed.

But seriously, describe one thing YOU might want to say that I can't in the UK? Unless you hold extreme racist or bigoted views, I can't think of any.

 

[Darat]

In Saudi Arabia, alcohol is banned and women are not allowed to drive. Automobile death rates in Saudi Arabia are the highest in the real world.

You are free to make different choices in your country. Many of the people who advocate restricting gun availability also favor restricting free speech -- I notice that's a choice you've made in your country too.

The United States has made a choice to err on the side of freedom. You may think we're according ourselves too much freedom, but it really isn't your choice to make. If tongue clucking is still allowed in your country, feel free to indulge.

I don't see how your posts follows on from what I posted.

You made a claim that the problem isn't the weapon but the people, I then pointed out that the facts are that in the USA you have already made the decision that it is often about the weapon but not the person.

 

[Alt+F4]

Why do you hate hate guns? P.S. I admit to trying alt + f4. I was not satisfied with the result, but it's all in good fun

Try me all you want to dear, I have a thick skin.

I hate guns because I have seen no useful purpose to them, now in late 2012. The U.S. had over 30,000 gun deaths in 2010 and about 70,000 non-fatal gun injuries. Why should we continue to live like this?

 

[Autolite]

Have you ever read a story where a "carman" drove a car into a school and ran over 28 people, killing them?

As strange as it may seem, this has happened this past year in St. Paul, Alberta (Canada).

A guy intentionally drove a mini-van through the wall of an elementary school classroom and killed some kids.

Apparently there were known psychological 'issues' with the driver.

So, should we focus on why the driver lost it or banning PT Cruisers???