Miami school shooting
Discussion
DurianIceCream said:
I'm not sure that a target gun even meets the definition of a weapon. It isn't used to kill, threaten or damage anything. Do you accept that there are guns out there which are not bought to kill anything and are also not particularly suited to killing things?
I can 100% accept this. But I've never heard of a murderous rampage using one of those target guns that are not particularly suited to killing things. DurianIceCream said:
I'm not sure that a target gun even meets the definition of a weapon. It isn't used to kill, threaten or damage anything. Do you accept that there are guns out there which are not bought to kill anything and are also not particularly suited to killing things?
I accept that a target gun doesn't meet the definition of a weapon. Do you accept that that guns bought for hunting or self defence can be defined as weapons? It is my feeling that firearms have another quite distinct role in US culture and that is of deterrent.
Controversial perhaps, but I believe there is a sobering influence on criminality, when there is a potentially mortal consequence.
I don't suggest it goes anywhere near eradication of criminal behavior, but I know it is an influencer. Nor am I suggesting that a miscreant who's attempting to nick your lawn mower off of your driveway would be justifiably executed for the offense, but the per-capita incidence of road-rage assaults, moped-assisted thievery, unprovoked attacks in bars etc., is less common in places where the intended victim has the capacity (and authority) to blow your brains out.
Controversial perhaps, but I believe there is a sobering influence on criminality, when there is a potentially mortal consequence.
I don't suggest it goes anywhere near eradication of criminal behavior, but I know it is an influencer. Nor am I suggesting that a miscreant who's attempting to nick your lawn mower off of your driveway would be justifiably executed for the offense, but the per-capita incidence of road-rage assaults, moped-assisted thievery, unprovoked attacks in bars etc., is less common in places where the intended victim has the capacity (and authority) to blow your brains out.
Efbe said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Efbe said:
well personally I read the gun rights amendment completely differently than the US legal system, in that it clearly reads to me the US has a right to an army that has weapons.
It doesn't say that at all. It says that because militias (as opposed to standing armies) are necessary, citizens must be allowed to bear arms. It may well have been intended to mean bear arms as part of a militia, but that isn't what it says.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
A militia is necessary (i.e. army) for which the people need guns for. Note the comma in the middle, not the word "and"
Which makes complete sense to the context of why it was written, to allow the US to form their own armed militia.
Otherwise why would it walk about making a militia and non-militia people getting guns. That would not make sense.
Matt Harper said:
It is my feeling that firearms have another quite distinct role in US culture and that is of deterrent.
Controversial perhaps, but I believe there is a sobering influence on criminality, when there is a potentially mortal consequence.
I don't suggest it goes anywhere near eradication of criminal behavior, but I know it is an influencer. Nor am I suggesting that a miscreant who's attempting to nick your lawn mower off of your driveway would be justifiably executed for the offense, but the per-capita incidence of road-rage assaults, moped-assisted thievery, unprovoked attacks in bars etc., is less common in places where the intended victim has the capacity (and authority) to blow your brains out.
Interesting. Controversial perhaps, but I believe there is a sobering influence on criminality, when there is a potentially mortal consequence.
I don't suggest it goes anywhere near eradication of criminal behavior, but I know it is an influencer. Nor am I suggesting that a miscreant who's attempting to nick your lawn mower off of your driveway would be justifiably executed for the offense, but the per-capita incidence of road-rage assaults, moped-assisted thievery, unprovoked attacks in bars etc., is less common in places where the intended victim has the capacity (and authority) to blow your brains out.
Probably to a lesser extent, but maybe it could be said that having a weapon might make otherwise timid, cowardly or ineffectual people with small dicks full of bravado and more likely to act the aggressive big man? These mass-shooters all seem to be utter dweebs who'd be capable of f
k all squared without their gunsMatt Harper said:
It is my feeling that firearms have another quite distinct role in US culture and that is of deterrent.
Controversial perhaps, but I believe there is a sobering influence on criminality, when there is a potentially mortal consequence.
I don't suggest it goes anywhere near eradication of criminal behavior, but I know it is an influencer. Nor am I suggesting that a miscreant who's attempting to nick your lawn mower off of your driveway would be justifiably executed for the offense, but the per-capita incidence of road-rage assaults, moped-assisted thievery, unprovoked attacks in bars etc., is less common in places where the intended victim has the capacity (and authority) to blow your brains out.
Deterrent ?Controversial perhaps, but I believe there is a sobering influence on criminality, when there is a potentially mortal consequence.
I don't suggest it goes anywhere near eradication of criminal behavior, but I know it is an influencer. Nor am I suggesting that a miscreant who's attempting to nick your lawn mower off of your driveway would be justifiably executed for the offense, but the per-capita incidence of road-rage assaults, moped-assisted thievery, unprovoked attacks in bars etc., is less common in places where the intended victim has the capacity (and authority) to blow your brains out.
So someone is going to break into someones house in florida, wouldnt the fact that the home owner is likely to have a gun make it more likely for the miscreant to get one too. As guns are readily available, they would find it very easy to get one.
cant you see that having a gun culture means that crime which in the UK would almost never involve a firearm, frequently does in the US ?
People over here dont generally break into peoples houses with guns, people generally dont turn over the local off licence with a gun, why is it such a regular thing in the US ?
I mean, even most of our police force dont carry guns (though were I work, our police carry G36C's) with the result that most serious criminal activity is also firearm free, can you honestly say that about the states ?
And, in the end, the availability of guns and the casual acceptance that almost anyone can have what they want, coupled with an overbearing, macho, results based, marginalising culture, leads to mass school shootings with a frequency any civilised person should be ashamed of.
^ As I have posted before, some of my relatives in suburban big city America don't lock their back door or their garage. Petty crime and petty theft isn't a day to day concern. OTOH in London, anything which is not bolted down, and a lot of things which are, get stolen. There are plenty of instances of criminals breaking into UK houses while people are inside, you can search right here on Pistonheads where this has happened to PH members.
Criminals also generally just want to steal stuff, not have a gun fight. I'd go with the deterrent argument.
Criminals also generally just want to steal stuff, not have a gun fight. I'd go with the deterrent argument.
DurianIceCream said:
^ As I have posted before, some of my relatives in suburban big city America don't lock their back door or their garage. Petty crime and petty theft isn't a day to day concern. OTOH in London, anything which is not bolted down, and a lot of things which are, get stolen.
Criminals also generally just want to steal stuff, not have a gun fight. I'd go with the deterrent argument.
Yep, I believe there is a lot of the US where crime is very low, so thats worth bringing up.Criminals also generally just want to steal stuff, not have a gun fight. I'd go with the deterrent argument.
JuniorD said:
Interesting.
Probably to a lesser extent, but maybe it could be said that having a weapon might make otherwise timid, cowardly or ineffectual people with small dicks full of bravado and more likely to act the aggressive big man? These mass-shooters all seem to be utter dweebs who'd be capable of fk all squared without their guns
A miniscule minority, I think you’ll find. Most of us who have firearms but are not gun/shooting enthusiasts, possess them as more of an insurance, rather than transforming us into Billy Big-bProbably to a lesser extent, but maybe it could be said that having a weapon might make otherwise timid, cowardly or ineffectual people with small dicks full of bravado and more likely to act the aggressive big man? These mass-shooters all seem to be utter dweebs who'd be capable of f
k all squared without their gunsks.Anti-gun politician cuts up husbands AR-15, making a working short barrelled rifle in the process. Short barrel rifles are highly regulated and illegal for her to possess. Gets investigated by ATF.
http://www.wusa9.com/mobile/article/news/local/myc...
http://www.wusa9.com/mobile/article/news/local/myc...
JuniorD said:
I can 100% accept this. But I've never heard of a murderous rampage using one of those target guns that are not particularly suited to killing things.
Hoddle Street Massacre. Somebody went berserker with a 22 rimfire, among a few other guns. You can take a tool not intended to kill people and kill people with it, if you are mad/bad enough to start with. OTOH if you are that mad/bad, there are all kinds of other everyday things you could also use to kill. DurianIceCream said:
JuniorD said:
I can 100% accept this. But I've never heard of a murderous rampage using one of those target guns that are not particularly suited to killing things.
Hoddle Street Massacre. Somebody went berserker with a 22 rimfire, among a few other guns. You can take a tool not intended to kill people and kill people with it, if you are mad/bad enough to start with. OTOH if you are that mad/bad, there are all kinds of other everyday things you could also use to kill. The madness surrounding gun legislation continues . . .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43352078
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43352078
Cliftonite said:
The madness surrounding gun legislation continues . . .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43352078
That needs to be looked at in context of a bill tabled by the Democrats which seeks to ban most semi-automatic rifles, most pistols, many types of magazines even for manual bolt guns and some shotguns. It is a comprehensive banning bill, far more extensive than even what some of the Florida school students were asking for. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43352078
With bills like that on the table, isn't in the NRA's interest to oppose everything (except the bump stocks which they are ok with).
Latest one - "Three hostages have been killed by a gunman, a former US Army rifleman, at a veterans' home in California. The gunman was Albert Wong, a 36-year-old who served in Afghanistan, who had been kicked off a treatment programme at the facility."
https://news.sky.com/story/army-veteran-shoots-dea...
Because we all know how sensible it is to allow former military suffering from PTSD to have access to guns is - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/03/snip...
https://news.sky.com/story/army-veteran-shoots-dea...
Because we all know how sensible it is to allow former military suffering from PTSD to have access to guns is - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/03/snip...
DurianIceCream said:
Cliftonite said:
The madness surrounding gun legislation continues . . .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43352078
That needs to be looked at in context of a bill tabled by the Democrats which seeks to ban most semi-automatic rifles, most pistols, many types of magazines even for manual bolt guns and some shotguns. It is a comprehensive banning bill, far more extensive than even what some of the Florida school students were asking for. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43352078
With bills like that on the table, isn't in the NRA's interest to oppose everything (except the bump stocks which they are ok with).
Sounds to me like they're throwing their toys out of the pram because a state dared raise the age at which certain firearms can be purchased to the same age at which drinking alcohol is legal.
I'm sure this will go down well with their hard core gun lovers, but doubt it'll attract any new members .
Good guy with a gun shoots carjacking victim in the head then drives off! https://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/texas-good-guy-wi...
DurianIceCream said:
^ I hadn't read that 2016 ruling so I went looking for it and found this Reddit explanation, which seems reasonable. Arms are things in common use that you can carry on your person.
https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/...
---
Also earlier I think you wrote about the interpretation of the Dist. of Columbia being that civilians, not in an organised fighting group, could bear arms. That was DC vs Heller and it was the interpretation of the supreme court, rather than the interpretation of DC.
As a side point, having an unwritten constitution provides at least as much scope for argument
I am certainly no expert in the field, my expertise is limited to googling and skim reading.https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/...
---
Also earlier I think you wrote about the interpretation of the Dist. of Columbia being that civilians, not in an organised fighting group, could bear arms. That was DC vs Heller and it was the interpretation of the supreme court, rather than the interpretation of DC.
As a side point, having an unwritten constitution provides at least as much scope for argument
However I can do English pretty well, for me it is very obvious what the second amendment was written for, what it is supposed to mean and what is does literally mean.
I do find it amusing that an entire country could twist the meaning of something written so many years ago, designed for a new country struggling against independence and finding it's feet in the world despite massive internal problems, and then this would be treated as a bible.
The idea that James Madison was the most intelligent and all knowing person in history and to write an unbending truth that would never change and could never be changed... and then for this to be twisted to let people shoot guns at each other, massively increasing the murder rate in the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world is equally amusing and worrying.
^ If you have only skim read and Googled, but as you say the 'entire country' has come to a different conclusion, does that not suggest to you there is more to it? Those that have looked at it include several sittings of the US Supreme Court, with the country's most senior judges. A quick Google and skim read is better?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff