Another mass shooting...

By that logic, we should ban cars, right? In societies with lots of cars like the U.S., there are a lot of car accidents.

Not to mention all the people that don't wear seatbelts, speed, drive intoxicated (i.e., alcohol, marijuana, etc.), etc.

Oh, and we should ban spoons while we're at it. They make people fat.

Look, when I say I don't really care about gun ownership, I mean I really don't care. I want people to be able to own them though. People like you and me to whom it has never occurred to shoot someone shouldn't have to suffer the consequences of others' actions.

By that logic, we should ban cars, right? In societies with lots of cars like the U.S., there are a lot of car accidents.

Not to mention all the people that don't wear seatbelts, speed, drive intoxicated (i.e., alcohol, marijuana, etc.), etc.

Oh, and we should ban spoons while we're at it. They make people fat.

Look, when I say I don't really care about gun ownership, I mean I really don't care. I want people to be able to own them though. People like you and me to whom it has never occurred to shoot someone shouldn't have to suffer the consequences of others' actions.

By that logic, we should ban cars, right? In societies with lots of cars like the U.S., there are a lot of car accidents.

Not to mention all the people that don't wear seatbelts, speed, drive intoxicated (i.e., alcohol, marijuana, etc.), etc.

Oh, and we should ban spoons while we're at it. They make people fat.

Look, when I say I don't really care about gun ownership, I mean I really don't care. I want people to be able to own them though. People like you and me to whom it has never occurred to shoot someone shouldn't have to suffer the consequences of others' actions.

That argument is old.

One
Cars have extreme licensing and safety and regulation vs guns
So bring it on if you want to make them equal


Two
Cars aee dssigned for travel.
Dying is a side effect of improper use.
Guns are desgined to kill.

Firearms are regarded as a right though.  Even though they really shouldn't be.  Seriously, read the second amendment and the history behind it.  It wasn't meant to give everyone the right to own a gun.

I never said we should ban cars. What I said was this...

"Countries with lots of cars have more pedestrian deaths too."

Then we should be devoting resources to monthly psych evals, all firings and breakups reported to fbi, and people with hisorty of dom violence and stalking not allowed to own.

Quote from: JJA on April 10, 2021, 09:53:43 AM

I never said we should ban cars. What I said was this...

"Countries with lots of cars have more pedestrian deaths too."

Yes, and your logic very clearly implies that, in order to reduce potential incidents (e.g., pedestrian deaths), we should reduce the amount of cars.

But that doesn't really address the root issues of reckless driving, like improper testing, rampant alcoholism, etc.

Much like firearms -- reducing the amount of firearms in circulation does little to actually address the root issues of gun violence, like mental health issues.

Quote from: Jamie on April 10, 2021, 05:48:33 AM

By that logic, we should ban cars, right? In societies with lots of cars like the U.S., there are a lot of car accidents.

Not to mention all the people that don't wear seatbelts, speed, drive intoxicated (i.e., alcohol, marijuana, etc.), etc.

Oh, and we should ban spoons while we're at it. They make people fat.

Look, when I say I don't really care about gun ownership, I mean I really don't care. I want people to be able to own them though. People like you and me to whom it has never occurred to shoot someone shouldn't have to suffer the consequences of others' actions.

Driving a car is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege has to be earned and it can be revoked.  They can also preemptively prevent you from driving a car for any number of reasons.

Firearms are regarded as a right though.  Even though they really shouldn't be.  Seriously, read the second amendment and the history behind it.  It wasn't meant to give everyone the right to own a gun.

You are correct. The 2nd Amendment was not written to give everyone the right to own a gun.

It was written to prevent the government from taking that right away.

A person is naturally born with the ability to communicate and act in defense of themselves.

Those processes are natural.

What is unnatural is to attempt to restrict those natural processes.

Quote from: Jamie on April 11, 2021, 05:59:33 AM

Quote from: JJA on April 10, 2021, 09:53:43 AM

I never said we should ban cars. What I said was this...

"Countries with lots of cars have more pedestrian deaths too."

Yes, and your logic very clearly implies that, in order to reduce potential incidents (e.g., pedestrian deaths), we should reduce the amount of cars.

Well that's obvious.  How is it controversial to state that less things that cause death will cause less death?  I'm not sure what you are arguing against here.

If your primary goal is to reduce deaths by cars, removing cars is the obvious solution. How could this not be the case?

Quote from: Jamie on April 11, 2021, 05:59:33 AM

But that doesn't really address the root issues of reckless driving, like improper testing, rampant alcoholism, etc.

It actually would address the effects of all those issues, no cars means no more reckless driving, no more improper testing, no more deaths by drunk driving. No more accidental deaths. No more suicide by car.

Removing cars is the best way to reduce deaths by cars. Not that I am not sayign we should get rid of cars, I am saying that getting rid of cars would reduce car-related deaths. This isn't debatable.

Quote from: Jamie on April 11, 2021, 05:59:33 AM

Much like firearms -- reducing the amount of firearms in circulation does little to actually address the root issues of gun violence, like mental health issues.

Removing guns certainly would address the issue of gun violence. How does one be violent with a gun if they don't have one?

Read what I'm saying. I am not claiming that removing guns is the only solution or the best solution or that we should start trying to confenscate them with home raids and take your guns from your cold dead hands. I'm simply saying that lots of guns leads to lots of gun deaths. Reducing the number of guns certainly is a part of the solution, and mental health issues and violence is another part.

Less guns means less death by guns. What is hard to understand here?

whooosh

A person is naturally born with the ability to communicate and act in defense of themselves.

Those processes are natural.

What is unnatural is to attempt to restrict those natural processes.

In the slave states, the militia was available for military operations, but its biggest function was to police the slaves.

According to Pennsylvania attorney Anthony Picadio, the Southern slave states would never have ratified the Second Amendment if it had been understood as creating an individual right to own firearms because of their fear of arming free blacks, hence the emphasis on the phrase "well regulated Militia", introducing the Second Amendment.

The case arose from the hotly-disputed 1872 Louisiana gubernatorial election and the subsequent Colfax massacre, in which dozens of black people and three white people were killed. Federal charges were brought against several white insurgents under the Enforcement Act of 1870, which prohibited two or more people from conspiring to deprive anyone of their constitutional rights. Charges included hindering the freedmen's First Amendment right to freely assemble and their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

In his majority opinion, Chief Justice Morrison Waite overturned the convictions of the defendants, holding that the plaintiffs had to rely on state courts for protection. Waite ruled that neither the First Amendment nor the Second Amendment applied to the actions of state governments or to individuals. He further ruled that the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applied to the actions of state governments, but not to individuals. The decision left African Americans in the South at the mercy of increasingly hostile state governments dominated by white Democratic legislatures, and allowed groups such as the Ku Klux Klan to continue to use paramilitary force to suppress black voting.

The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill that repealed a law allowing public carrying of loaded firearms. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, and signed into law by governor of California Ronald Reagan, the bill was crafted with the goal of disarming members of the Black Panther Party who were lawfully conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods, in what would later be termed copwatching.[1][2] They garnered national attention after Black Panthers members, bearing arms, marched upon the California State Capitol to protest the bill.[3][4][5]

now is not the time to politicize.
it's time to offer prayers and thoughts.
the senators and house don't have any mechanism to solve such complex issues


...

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on April 12, 2021, 03:47:16 AM

A person is naturally born with the ability to communicate and act in defense of themselves.

Those processes are natural.

What is unnatural is to attempt to restrict those natural processes.

Guns aren't natural.
Also also: Humans stopped being natural sometime around the invention of fire.  Cooking food isn't natural.

And while babies can communicate on a very very basic level "cry= something wrong" anything more complex must be taught.  They sure as hell can't defend themselves tho.  Not until they learn to.

So its more accurate to say "humans have the natural ability to learn".

And finally:
How does a gun defend you against say.... A missile?  You are already defenseless.  You can be killed without even being able to fire off a shot.  What you want is to feel like you can fight someone as weak as you and win.  What you want is to know that you could kill someone easily, assuming you had enough time.  Its not about stopping tyrany.  War has advanced too much for that.  You just need to be able to stop your neighbor.

As i said


Let me know.when YOUR freedoms are being taken away

The discussion isn't about freedom and technically freedom isn't free or the sense of being free.

It is the issue of natural actions/reactions and that is what is codified in what is called the Bill of Rights.

Natural processes of humanity. Infringement, by the government, upon those natural processes is taking place everyday of our lives.

No doubt.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 13, 2021, 04:32:21 AM

As i said


Let me know.when YOUR freedoms are being taken away

The discussion isn't about freedom and technically freedom isn't free or the sense of being free.

It is the issue of natural actions/reactions and that is what is codified in what is called the Bill of Rights.

Natural processes of humanity. Infringement, by the government, upon those natural processes is taking place everyday of our lives.

No doubt.

Let me know.when YOUR freedoms are being taken away

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 13, 2021, 04:32:21 AM

Let me know.when YOUR freedoms are being taken away

That's easy for me -- downsides of being gay.

But it's been getting a lot better in the last few years. Seriously, these younger people are really, really on their A-game when it comes to treating us like anyone else, which I greatly appreciate. If only the policies would keep up...