Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

@oralloy,

Quote:

The simple truth is that more guns equal more death.

No, that is anything but true.

Could it be true that the more guns we have there will be more deaths caused by guns or do you think that if there were no guns at all, there would be more deaths caused by guns?

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

Val Killmore wrote:
firefly when will you understand that this debate won't go in your favor in reality. The majority of Americans will not give up their right to bear arms,

I'm not saying that the population should be disarmed--that's the extemist nonsense and paranoid fear that the NRA is trying to promote.

You are, however, trying to ban the sorts of guns that the Constitution says people have the right to have, even though the House Democrats have made it clear that they will refuse to pass such a ban.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Val Killmore wrote:
The majority of Americans will not give up their right to bear arms.

The discussion is not about "right to bear arms."

Yes it is.

cicerone imposter wrote:

It's about the type of arms that the VP is researching to bring to the President to make into law.

In other words, the type of guns that the US Constitution says we have the right to have, and which the House Democrats are going to refuse to ban.

cicerone imposter wrote:

The Constitution does not allow any kind of arms ownership by Americans.

It does, however, protect the rights of Americans to own assault weapons.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Likely most of it is due to poverty. We have a lousy social safety net.

Which of our more recent mass murderers, who accomplished their killings with guns, was living in poverty?

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Only because they were not stopped first.

This "first" thing, with the assumed presence of an armed guard, is an interesting point. Because if the guard shot an intruder BEFORE anyone else was shot, that would arguably be first degree murder. Which is a major disincentive to good-guy action. Third parties have to die before it becomes legal to fire.

If guns are the answer, we're asking the wrong question.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Likely most of it is due to poverty. We have a lousy social safety net.

Wow I find it odd that I agree with you. What do you think that we could do to make things more fair?

1 Reply

@Wilso,

Quote:

From the period of 1979 to 2007 the CDC reports 116,385 children under the age of 18 have been killed by firearms.

What really? That's amazing. All that freedom.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Could it be true that the more guns we have there will be more deaths caused by guns

Yes. With a greater presence of guns, murders that would have been carried out without a gun, are instead carried out with a gun, leading to a greater number of "gun deaths", but not leading to a greater number of deaths.

reasoning logic wrote:

do you think that if there were no guns at all, there would be more deaths caused by guns?

No.

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

Which of our more recent mass murderers, who accomplished their killings with guns, was living in poverty?

Don't know. Never looked into their situation.

However, the vast majority of American murders are not due to spree killings.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

You are, however, trying to ban the sorts of guns that the Constitution says people have the right to have

Duh, oralloy, the Constitution does not describe any types of guns...

Quote:

It does, however, protect the rights of Americans to own assault weapons.

No it doesn't. We previously did have an assault weapons ban--it was not ruled unconstitutional. We need another ban, one with fewer loop-holes, and one with a better definition of "assault weapon" that more clearly reflects the intention of the ban and what it is designed to prevent.

And, Justice Scalia has clearly said that some weapons can be prohibited from sale, and some people can be prohibited from buying.

I'll trust Scalia's interpretation over yours any day.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

You,
Quote:
The majority of Americans will not give up their right to bear arms.

The discussion is not about "right to bear arms." Your myopia is showing. It's about the type of arms that the VP is researching to bring to the President to make into law. The Constitution does not allow any kind of arms ownership by Americans. That's a FACT. Look it up, and educate yourself about this subject.

From SCOTUS.

Quote:
The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.

Oralloy have answered it as I would have:

oralloy wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Val Killmore wrote:
The majority of Americans will not give up their right to bear arms.

The discussion is not about "right to bear arms."

Yes it is.

cicerone imposter wrote:
It's about the type of arms that the VP is researching to bring to the President to make into law.

In other words, the type of guns that the US Constitution says we have the right to have, and which the House Democrats are going to refuse to ban.

cicerone imposter wrote:
The Constitution does not allow any kind of arms ownership by Americans.

It does, however, protect the rights of Americans to own assault weapons.

I'd like to add that oralloy is correct in Americans having the right to own "assault" weapons.
The word "assault" whenever referring to any firearm is a word that anti-gun people have coined to weigh against our rights in the first place. This clever trick seems to allow them to put us freedom lovers on the defensive in a way that is senseless, and slants the table downward in our direction.
If the anti gun advocates called handguns 'killing machines' would we talk about the operation of handguns as 'my killing machine is jamming," or "I bought a new rail mounted laser light for my 'killing machine," etc..?

Shame on you CI and the anti gun propaganda you support.

2 Replies

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Only because they were not stopped first.

This "first" thing, with the assumed presence of an armed guard, is an interesting point. Because if the guard shot an intruder BEFORE anyone else was shot, that would arguably be first degree murder. Which is a major disincentive to good-guy action. Third parties have to die before it becomes legal to fire.

If someone were suspicious, the guard could issue a challenge and demand that the suspicious person comply with his orders.

It should be pretty easy to tell if someone is trying to shoot their way into a school or not.

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Likely most of it is due to poverty. We have a lousy social safety net.

Wow I find it odd that I agree with you. What do you think that we could do to make things more fair?

Better social programs paid for by higher taxes.

Give people hope, especially in inner city neighborhoods where many people can look forward only to a life of poverty.

1 Reply

@Val Killmore,

I'll say to you what I said to oralloy...

We previously did have an assault weapons ban--it was not ruled unconstitutional. We need another ban, one with fewer loop-holes, and one with a better definition of "assault weapon" that more clearly reflects the intention of the ban and what it is designed to prevent.

And, Justice Scalia has clearly said that some weapons can be prohibited from sale, and some people can be prohibited from buying.

I'll trust Scalia's interpretation over yours any day.

Quote:

If the anti gun advocates called handguns 'killing machines'...

Some handguns are killing machines. Feel better now, VK?

All guns are killing machines--that's what guns are meant to do.

That's why we need gun control and regulation.

That's not being "anti-gun", it's about creating safer conditions for having guns in circulation so the general public is not unduly endangered.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

With a greater presence of guns, murders that would have been carried out without a gun, are instead carried out with a gun, leading to a greater number of "gun deaths", but not leading to a greater number of deaths.

You must know that isn't true Oralloy. Surely? It implies that all other methods of killing people are as successful as guns are.

A fair number of attempted murders using other methods must have failed where a gun would have succeeded. It is the efficiency of guns that is in dispute.

If you were to bear the sort of arms that were in use when the 2nd was written I don't suppose there would be all that many complaints. Or deaths.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

It should be pretty easy to tell if someone is trying to shoot their way into a school or not.

It should be pretty easy eh? You're scraping the bottom with that one Oralloy.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Better social programs paid for by higher taxes.

That's interesting. A platform for the next election. Fighting gun control and raising taxes. That should sort out the priorities I should think.

There would be some tossing and turning in beds I imagine.

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

oralloy wrote:
You are, however, trying to ban the sorts of guns that the Constitution says people have the right to have

Duh, oralloy, the Constitution does not describe any types of guns...

There is no legitimate reason for banning harmless cosmetic features. Therefore such a ban violates Rational Basis Review (to say nothing of the even sterner standards of scrutiny that the courts might choose to apply).

firefly wrote:

oralloy wrote:
It does, however, protect the rights of Americans to own assault weapons.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does. The fact that there is no legitimate reason for banning harmless cosmetic features means that any such ban violates Rational Basis Review (to say nothing of the even sterner standards of scrutiny that the courts might choose to apply).

firefly wrote:

We previously did have an assault weapons ban

Yes. You are guilty of a grave atrocity against American freedom.

firefly wrote:

--it was not ruled unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court was allowing the Constitution to be violated at the time.

Note that they have begun to enforce the Constitution now.

firefly wrote:

We need another ban, one with fewer loop-holes, and one with a better definition of "assault weapon" that more clearly reflects the intention of the ban and what it is designed to prevent.

It's never going to happen. The NRA will not allow it, and neither will the Supreme Court.

firefly wrote:

And, Justice Scalia has clearly said that some weapons can be prohibited from sale, and some people can be prohibited from buying.

Did he say the Supreme Court was going to abandon Rational Basis Review and the other standards of scrutiny?

firefly wrote:

I'll trust Scalia's interpretation over yours any day.

You might note that Justice Scalia agrees with me. And so do four other justices.

We're within a year or two of a Supreme Court ruling that Americans have the right to carry handguns when they go about in public, even in our largest cities.

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

I'll say to you what I said to oralloy...
We previously did have an assault weapons ban

You are guilty of a grave atrocity against the American people because of it.

firefly wrote:

--it was not ruled unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court was not enforcing the Constitution at the time.

They are enforcing the Constitution now.

firefly wrote:

We need another ban, one with fewer loop-holes, and one with a better definition of "assault weapon" that more clearly reflects the intention of the ban and what it is designed to prevent.

The NRA will not allow it. Neither will the Supreme Court.

firefly wrote:

And, Justice Scalia has clearly said that some weapons can be prohibited from sale, and some people can be prohibited from buying.

But has he said that the Supreme Court plans to abandon Rational Basis Review and the other standards of scrutiny?

firefly wrote:

I'll trust Scalia's interpretation over yours any day.

Scalia's interpretation agrees with us.

firefly wrote:

it's about creating safer conditions for having guns in circulation so the general public is not unduly endangered.

Harmless cosmetic features endanger no one.

0 Replies

@Val Killmore,

It's about limits to bear arms in accordance with our Constitution. What I wrote was,

Quote:

The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation,

The congress has the right to impose "limits" on arms in this country; believe it or not!

Too bad you're unable to understand the English language which I posted with bolded letters. I never said anything about ownership of guns. Show me where I said such a thing.

2 Replies

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know