Study shows gun control would prevent mass shootings

[Shugo]

since many other societies seem to have solved it.

What countries have had spree shootings as regular as the US to change its laws and show the US the error of its ways? No countries I'm aware of have ever had spree shootings anywhere near as regular as the US.

 

[AnOminous]

It doesn't look to me like these militias can equip themselves very easily with a limited and dropping number of arms fit for militia use. I would say the right to form a militia is being infringed upon.

Except the Supreme Court has held, in enforcing the Second Amendment more strongly than it has in the past, in D.C. v. Heller and its progeny, that the right protected by the Second Amendment is a personal right, not a collective right held by "the People" in general, as most proponents of gun control have argued.

The right is to bear arms, not to form a militia. Forming a militia is only the original purpose served by establishing in the Bill of Rights a right to bear arms, but the right isn't circumscribed by only being relevant in the context of militia formation, which is something that more or less never occurred as the Framers intended.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

I don't know of any provision in the National Firearms Act that allows an exemption of registering NFA firearms for militia use.

Also of note is the fact that the Supreme Court has argued in favor of upholding the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act, because Short Barreled Rifles were said to have 'no militia use' so it was fine to charge an insane amount of money for transferring ownership of one of these guns to another person.

The Supreme Court doesn't argue. It rules.

It's also highly unlikely that any reasoning like that would stand in light of Heller.

"The Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (200.

 

[Shugo]

Except the Supreme Court has held, in enforcing the Second Amendment more strongly than it has in the past, in D.C. v. Heller and its progeny, that the right protected by the Second Amendment is a personal right, not a collective right held by "the People" in general, as most proponents of gun control have argued.

The right is to bear arms, not to form a militia. Forming a militia is only the original purpose served by establishing in the Bill of Rights a right to bear arms, but the right isn't circumscribed by only being relevant in the context of militia formation, which is something that more or less never occurred as the Framers intended.

I agree, I just like humoring the idea that the "well-regulated militia" clause as a means to ban all guns for everyone but those permitted by the government to form a militia is an extremely shallow argument.

People just call out 'Well-Regulated Militia' as an excuse to ban guns without thinking how a militia is formed, and how it is armed. If a person cannot arm himself, how can he form and serve in a militia? By being issued arms which are strictly regulated by a government? Then is a well-regulated militia's necessity not being tramped on?

 

[Dudeofteenage]

What countries have had spree shootings as regular as the US to change its laws and show the US the error of its ways? No countries I'm aware of have ever had spree shootings anywhere near as regular as the US.

That's exactly my point.

 

[Lefty's Revenge]

I made a facebook post suggesting that maybe we make it a little more difficult for crazy people to purchase guns (Jared Loughner, James Holmes, Dylan Roof, Adam Lanza, and that black dude all had guns purchased legally) and my family went nuts saying I was trying to take everyone's guns away.

So it would probably be easier for me family wise if we just shot the autistics. I'm totally on board for that.

This is the thing I can't stand about the gun debate in America. We've allowed lobbyists to push narratives that don't even make any sense. Like, why can't we as a nation, agree that retarded people can't have guns? Why? Because its "a slippery slope?" Then don't fucking slip.

We've actually let the gun industry convince us that the cure to mass shootings is somehow more guns. And regardless of how you feel about guns in general that doesn't make a lick of fucking sense.

Like the other day I read a quote from Rand Paul, who I actually like and have some respect for, he said that the main deterrent for a crazy person with a gun is a sane person with one too. And I'm just sitting there like "How?" A crazy person is fucking crazy. Why would you expect them to make a rational decision like not shooting for fear of getting shot? They wouldn't be crazy if they made rational decisions.

 

[Shugo]

That's exactly my point.

When a country has never had a large amount of spree shootings, and to claim that they have "solved them" due to their laws that were passed when no large amounts spree shootings have happened, and having no effect on spree shootings, that does not prove to me that the country is a model we must follow.

Like the other day I read a quote from Rand Paul, who I actually like and have some respect for, he said that the main deterrent for a crazy person with a gun is a sane person with one too. And I'm just sitting there like "How?"

because people who have inferiority complexes and want to force their superiority over others often like to commit mass murders against places that are easy targets that don't fight back. There are not many mass murders being attempted in police stations for the reason that anyone who walks into a police station with a gun, shooting, will be gunned down themselves. The people who commit mass murders like this want to commit them unopposed, so they go to places where guns are banned, so no one can fight back.

Why would you expect them to make a rational decision like not shooting for fear of getting shot?

Look at how many mass shootings are done in schools or other places where firearms are illegal to carry and you'll see there's a big trend. They're rational enough to avoid attacking anywhere dangerous.

 

[Enclave Supremacy]

I don't understand how any militia can exist when people cannot arm themselves with, say, what a typical infantry unit of the US military is armed with. If such arms are denied from the people, how can they form any effective militia to protect against the federal government?
.

That's what I love most about gun-control advocates. When-ever this argument is broken out. Like some weekend-warriors with camo bucket hats and small-arms are going to take out the U.S. military? See what an AR-15 does against an F-35 dowsing you with napalm or phosphorous or something.

 

[AnOminous]

This is the thing I can't stand about the gun debate in America. We've allowed lobbyists to push narratives that don't even make any sense. Like, why can't we as a nation, agree that retarded people can't have guns? Why? Because its "a slippery slope?" Then don't fucking slip.

So far as I know, retarded people haven't really been an issue with guns. The main issues seem to be people with a propensity for violence due to mental illness, and people presumed to have a propensity for violence because of their convictions for crimes.

In at least one recent case, that of Dylann Roof, the shooter was unambiguously ineligible to purchase a firearm because of existing law, but was nevertheless greenlighted to buy because of the inability to communicate between federal and state authorities.

I certainly don't think all the legislation that would be constitutionally permissible is on the books, but there are a few things that meet with near universal approval, such as background checks so that violent criminals and psychotics can't just buy a gun with no problem, and there are laws that would cover these cases. They just aren't being enforced.

That would seem to be the pragmatic place to start, at least if people were actually serious about doing something possible, instead of just demanding all guns be done away with, or that everyone has the right to their own roof-mounted machinegun on their SUV.

 

[Shugo]

That's what I love most about gun-control advocates. When-ever this argument is broken out. Like some weekend-warriors with camo bucket hats and small-arms are going to take out the U.S. military? See what an AR-15 does against an F-35 dowsing you with napalm or phosphorous or something.

Doesn't the 2nd amendment, advocating the necessity of a well-regulated militia to take on a federal military if need be, permit F-35s armed with missiles for civilian militia ownership?

When people bring up the militia part of the 2nd amendment, they just say how due to regulations of arms it's impossible to have an equal fight with the US military.

Isn't that the definition of the right to keep and bear arms being infringed, in terms of a militia being necessary to oppose the national military?

 

[PeteyCoffee]

That's what I love most about gun-control advocates. When-ever this argument is broken out. Like some weekend-warriors with camo bucket hats and small-arms are going to take out the U.S. military? See what an AR-15 does against an F-35 dowsing you with napalm or phosphorous or something.

You sure have a better chance with any firearm, compared to having just basic tools.

At least two guerrilla militias with somewhat minimal popular support have defeated the US military in order to achieve their ends (in Vietnam and Iraq.) The American revolution defeated The British Empire.

 

[Enclave Supremacy]

You sure have a better chance with any firearm, compared to having just basic tools.

At least two guerrilla militias with somewhat minimal popular support have defeated the US military in order to achieve their ends (in Vietnam and Iraq.) The American revolution defeated The British Empire.

It defeated Britain, America was pretty much the entire empire. Calling it the Empire makes it sound like it beat them at their height. And back in those days it was just soldiers in lines and muskets. I'm not saying a guerrila campaign by militiamen couldn't be effective, America is a big as place to search, roadside bombs etc. But winning to establish the New Republic? Seems hard to do. The American military is just to vast and powerful.

 

[Datiko]

But would more gun control result in fewer shootings overall? Its stupid to make policy based on an event that has no real statistical impact. Crimes involving firearms are mostly committed using firearms that are illegal to begin with. Stem the flow of illegal weapons if you want to make a difference and enforce laws on the books. Though I'm in the process of renouncing my citizenship so maybe I don't deserve to have a horse in the game anymore.

 

[PeteyCoffee]

This is the thing I can't stand about the gun debate in America. We've allowed lobbyists to push narratives that don't even make any sense. Like, why can't we as a nation, agree that retarded people can't have guns? Why? Because its "a slippery slope?" Then don't fucking slip.

We've actually let the gun industry convince us that the cure to mass shootings is somehow more guns. And regardless of how you feel about guns in general that doesn't make a lick of fucking sense.

Like the other day I read a quote from Rand Paul, who I actually like and have some respect for, he said that the main deterrent for a crazy person with a gun is a sane person with one too. And I'm just sitting there like "How?" A crazy person is fucking crazy. Why would you expect them to make a rational decision like not shooting for fear of getting shot? They wouldn't be crazy if they made rational decisions.

Because then all they have to do is call everyone retarded, and no more gun rights.

Even forgetting that people might push that angle in order to improve their position (through increasing the relative power of their institution, over the course of decades or centuries). Plenty of people, especially political types, truly believe everyone except them is retarded. So the 'retards can't have guns' legal precedent, if they agree with it, should already apply to everyone. They now have a claim that the law is on their side. And if the majority of American citizens also believe Americans are stupid (which sometimes already seems to be the case), they have the popular support to 'enforce the law'. In conclusion, once the legal precedent exists, they will from that point on use it to the extent their political capital allows.

Who knows whether these kinds of people will ever have enough political capital to further take away gun rights, even with that legal precedent. But once the precedent is there, it requires far less political capital to push it further.

 

[PeteyCoffee]

It defeated Britain, America was pretty much the entire empire. Calling it the Empire makes it sound like it beat them at their height. And back in those days it was just soldiers in lines and muskets. I'm not saying a guerrila campaign by militiamen couldn't be effective, America is a big as place to search, roadside bombs etc. But winning to establish the New Republic? Seems hard to do. The American military is just to vast and powerful.

It's always been incredible to me that the Iraqi insurgency defeated the United States after somehow persevering for over eight years. I mean, how did their desert guerrilla war in a country about the size of California succeed against the world's greatest superpower ever?

With a can do attitude, I guess you can accomplish amazing things.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

When a country has never had a large amount of spree shootings, and to claim that they have "solved them" due to their laws that were passed when no large amounts spree shootings have happened, and having no effect on spree shootings, that does not prove to me that the country is a model we must follow.

It's not so much a model to follow as proof that spree killings are not an inevitable consequence of living in a non-utopian society. Saying "well you will never totally eradicate violence" in response to spree shootings is as vapid as saying "well you will never totally eradicate disease" in response to a meningitis outbreak.

I don't have a precise roadmap for preventing spree shootings in the USA, but it's silly to claim that they are something one must just live with as inevitable result of living in the real world. I guess the word "solve" might have been the wrong one to use, although I do think you can say a society that never experiences a problem has "solved" it especially if it's a widespread problem. Prevention is better than cure, as any Doctor will tell you. But I'm not saying that the UK or Sweden or w/e offer some kind of best practice that the USA can simply import. I'm merely saying that they show that spree shootings are not an inevitable consequence of an industrialised/urbanised society, which is something a lot of gun control opponents sometimes say.

It's always been incredible to me that the Iraqi insurgency defeated the United States after somehow persevering for over eight years. I mean, how did their desert guerrilla war in a country about the size of California succeed against the world's greatest superpower ever?

Guerilla warfare against a large Imperial power is not just effective, it's probably the most effective strategy. It's happened again and again - the French in Algeria and again in Vietnam, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the Germans in the USSR, the Japanese in China, the USA in Iraq (sorry guys), etc etc. The surprise is not that this strategy sometimes works, the surprise is when it doesn't work - and the few examples where it didn't work militarily it usually worked politically (e.g. Portugal in Africa) or it was a pretty exceptional case (the British in Malaysia).

Having said that there is one thing that all these campaigns had in common - the guerillas were people who were used to a substantially lower standard of living than their invaders. It's no coincidence that during WW2 partisan warfare was more effective in Eastern Europe/the USSR than it was in Western Europe (honourable exception to the French, but even the French Resistance was probably not going to force the Germans out of France without outside assistance). The idea of the inhabitants of a wealthy, industrialised, urbanised country fighting a Vietnam style guerilla war is quite jarring. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but history tells us it is unlikely to be effective.

Although some kind of future libertarian uprising in the USA is more likely to take the form of a revolution (successful or unsuccessful) than a prolonged guerilla war.

 

[Vitriol]

That would be constitutionalism, in which the passing whim of a majority doesn't eliminate basic rights for everyone.

I disagree, the mechanism for changing your constitution ultimately rests on elected individuals and imo is democratic in character. The passing whim of the electorate might be filtered out the settled will is not.

 

[AnOminous]

I disagree, the mechanism for changing your constitution ultimately rests on elected individuals and imo is democratic in character. The passing whim of the electorate might be filtered out the settled will is not.

The U.S. Constitution's Article V process requires an excruciating procedure that is supermajoritarian in the extreme, to the point it is virtually impossible for anything other than overwhelming political will, lasting for a lengthy period, to alter it. It can also be thwarted by the legislatures of any more than 12 states.

That's a good thing.

At almost any time in the history of the country, a straight up and down poll on whether we should have the First Amendment's protections would probably lose.

 

[Holdek]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

I don't know of any provision in the National Firearms Act that allows an exemption of registering NFA firearms for militia use.

Also of note is the fact that the Supreme Court has argued in favor of upholding the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act, because Short Barreled Rifles were said to have 'no militia use' so it was fine to charge an insane amount of money for transferring ownership of one of these guns to another person. Yet Machine Guns and Short Barreled Rifles are also regulated heavily by the act, but it's fine to infringe on them...

$200 in 1934 is worth about $3000 for the gun changing ownership. Anytime you sell the gun, you had to pay a tax of $3000. That sounds like an infringement to me if these have a militia use. It was upheld when challenged in court, even though back then and even today NFA firearms are widely used in the military.

This is an incredibly complex piece of legislation that even the regulatory agency, the ATF, flip flops on its definitions. On a whim they have decided a device that 'can' be mounted on your shoulder turns your pistol into a short-barreled rifle, a huge fine and potential 10 years in jail for 'manufacturing' (i.e. buying and screwing onto your gun) several months after sending out letters reassuring everyone that the device was NOT necessary to register under the act.

I don't trust flip-flopping agencies who cannot make up their mind on laws, creating huge consequences for anyone that believes their first judgement not to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. There are no judges, there is no new legislation clarifying anything since the law was written over 80 years ago. All we have are these bureaucrats who decide what is and isn't legal based on how bitchy they feel one day. Their reasoning for tons of their classifications is circular.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Act applies to private individuals and groups, not state government organizations.

 

[AP 297]

It's always been incredible to me that the Iraqi insurgency defeated the United States after somehow persevering for over eight years. I mean, how did their desert guerrilla war in a country about the size of California succeed against the world's greatest superpower ever?

With a can do attitude, I guess you can accomplish amazing things.

Off topic: Um, the Iraqi Insurgency did not win. The US left after the Iraqi government decided not to let us stay. The US are not in the business of acquiring territory any longer. When the US left the country was stable.

It was the mess in Syria next door that flung things out of proportion. Also your trolling is really not that good - Faulty premise, clear shot towards any Americans, intentionally taking the discussion off topic, and fake homespun aloofness. While I will admit to some degree effective; it makes most of scratch our heads.

On Topic: There was another recent shooting in Oregon, a state that had universal background checks and the shooter used pistols. No Assault Weapons or other items that might raise questions. The guy rounded people up and shot them point blank in the head. You don't need a SemiAuto for that.

Edit: I was corrected the Oregon shooter did have a rifle on him, but he did not use them in the executions

It puts clear emphasis on Mental Health in the US.

 

[Shugo]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Act applies to private individuals and groups, not state government organizations.

Militias are not government organizations, as far as I'm aware of.

Let's forget the fact that there was a cop in the building.

No, there was not. Where are you getting this info? The school had no SRO.

And then there's the brilliant claim that kept floating post Sandy hook that every teacher should have a gun in their classroom.

No, they shouldn't. But teachers who are licensed to carry a firearm concealed should not have that revoked because they step onto a schoolground. Do you believe everyone with a license to carry a firearm is so deranged, they can't be trusted not to whip it out and murder someone over something petty? People who can carry a gun virtually anywhere else, but where they work? Especially schoolteachers?

Fast forward to Charleston, do you really think that shooting could have been stopped if everyone in there was strapped?

It could have been stopped sooner. Instead of every church member arguing and pleading for their lives while Dylann explained why he had to murder them, one of them could have fought back. I would much, MUCH prefer that 4 or 5 people die instead of 9 being slaughtered helplessly, begging their murderer for mercy.

Dylann himself said he wanted to exterminate blacks, but was too scared to go into ghettos and shoot at black gangbangers that might shoot back. He intentionally chose a Church because people by law must be disarmed at churches. Making these gun free zones just draws murderous psychopaths there to commit their mass murders unopposed.

What is the argument for keeping schools and Churches 'gun-free zones' when this stuff happens? Do you think people bent on murdering another person will be discouraged by a law prohibiting guns being carried somewhere? Do you think people who carry guns are so, so volatile and ready to snap at any second that they can't be trusted not to murder children who annoy them at school, even though they can carry in virtually everywhere but schools and some government buildings?