Coward Murders Children in Florida

[mongrel]

Thanks for sharing. I'll do some more digging on this, because I think it's pretty compelling. The problem I see is not that we have the 2nd amendment but that we designate certain areas as non-gun areas. It gets very easy to pick soft targets as a result, and that's where most of these shootings take place (schools, theatres, concerts)



I don't expect a non-American to truly understand the nature of our Constitution but the ignorance, vitriol, and hatred dripping from this post is shocking, to be frank. My entire family and most of my friends are legal gun owners and would no sooner think of murdering someone than they would think of running a red light. The fact you think they should be shot for exercising a constitutional right is quite frankly disgusting. I'd argue the culture that can produce this sort of thinking is the truly vile one. But then again, we are talking Germany, a nation that understands constitutional rights about as much as it does the value of a human life historically speaking. You clearly have very little understanding of US constitutional law, much less actual regulation of firearms in the United States.

I would argue that if your first instinct for a thread like this was to show up and gloat, you need to seriously re-evaluate things.

I was wondering when the C word would be deployed. It's the 21st century now, time for the US to move on. If the US can ban slavery , an evil countenanced by the founding fathers, it can restrict firearms. After all, Europeans are no longer obliged to provide service or scutage to peers of the realm, we aren't tied to quaint and ancient customs.

[Elfdude]

Why do you feel its necessary to protect against government autocracy? Australia, Canada, UK and Ireland don't have that problem. Why would the USA?

I think the US is a flawed democracy and runs the risk of becoming a true autocracy since the 1970's court ruling that spending money was equivalent to free speech pushing out democracy and moving us more towards plutocracy. It's a small step from there to complete autocracy. I think most democracies in europe have stronger controls on this and there's at least currently a much stronger understanding of the government serves the people. The entire GOP platform and large portions of the dems platforms seem in my estimation to lead towards this eventuality begging the question of whether we will regain control of our democracy or if it will be stolen by the powers that be.

At the same time, the most effective counter to an autocratic state was not guns (i.e. poland) but I also think collective action in the US has been demolished in preparation for corporate and rich control whilst the public not only lets it happen but thinks they're making america great again by doing so.

[ioannis76]

My condolences to the American people.

[Cope]

I think the US is a flawed democracy and runs the risk of becoming a true autocracy since the 1970's court ruling that spending money was equivalent to free speech pushing out democracy and moving us more towards plutocracy. It's a small step from there to complete autocracy. I think most democracies in europe have stronger controls on this and there's at least currently a much stronger understanding of the government serves the people. The entire GOP platform and large portions of the dems platforms seem in my estimation to lead towards this eventuality begging the question of whether we will regain control of our democracy or if it will be stolen by the powers that be.

I wouldn't say that the United Kingdom has a stronger theoretical democracy than the United States. The US does, after all, possess two elected chambers supported by a well-respected codified constitution. By contrast, the UK has a single sovereign body, Parliament, the electoral rules for which are designed to return a single party to governance. Theoretically there are virtually no constraints on what Parliament can or cannot do.

[Elfdude]

I wouldn't say that the United Kingdom has a stronger theoretical democracy than the United States. The US does, after all, possess a number of elected chambers supported by a well-respected codified constitution. By contrast, the UK has a single sovereign body, Parliament, the electoral rules for which are designed to return a single party to governance. Theoretically there are virtually no constraints on what Parliament can or cannot do.

Good question. Regardless I do feel that with all 3 branches controlled by a single party they can more or less do what they want. The only thing which holds them back at this very moment is public opinion.

Condolences vs. Policy Change

[Love Mountain]

I can't take your arguments seriously when you don't back them up with data. Ultimately they are irrelevant, since the right to keep and bear arms isn't going to go away, at least not in our lifetime. That's why in the OP of this thread I wanted to not waste time talking about that as an option. It isn't a solution.

That’s comical coming from somebody who calls firearms “heavily regulated” as well as someone who doesn’t post their own evidence when they make their own claims in their replies. I read your OP and the unwillingness to actively encourage discussion of gun control is inane as cases like these are intrinsically tied to gun control. Attempts to downplay or discourage the obvious direction in which the conversation will go is intellectual cowardice.

Does having fewer firearms prevent mass casualty scenarios? Don't the criminals there just use bombs, knives, or trucks? Also, you don't get to aggregate different countries and pretend they are all one country to justify comparisons to the United StatesNorway is basically no diversity compared to the US, and saying Norwegians and Germans have significant ethnic differences in the same way a first generation Guatemalan-American citizen and an average white person living in St. Louis is simply disingenuous.

First of all, No they dont. Recent mass murders in Europe are a result of Islamic terror and not a social phenomena like it is in the United States. Even including those events Europe does not suffer from school shootings or mass murder with the regularity that America does.

Second I do get to compre them and it woukd be perfectly fair. Unless you’re trying to tell me that an American with Guatemalan heritage is somehow more different to a White American than a Norwegian is to a Turk, or an Algerian French. Your complaint has been noted, deconstructed, and dismissed.

No it is not.

Anywhere between a fifth to a third of Americans own firearms. Over 300 million firearms in circulation. Over 15 million concealed carry permit holders and over a million violent crimes in the U.S. annually. It is in fact statistically irrelevant. Its not even 1% of crime prevented by responsible gun owners. What a joke of an argument.

It's one of the most regulated portions of the Bill of Rights on the federal level.

Do your own research by the state.

I did. And in no way are firearms “heavily regulated”. I have to go through more hassle to buy a regular vehicle than I do to buy a firearm.

The Constitution is sick and twisted?

Strawman, but since we’re discussing the perfection that’s the Constitution tell me more about how many amendments we had to make just to make Black people equal citizens.

Any Constitutional arguments on this issue can go stuff themselves in a toilet and drown themselves. The Constitutional challenge to gun control is an issue of political will and legality, not one of policy or morality. Almost identically to the Civil Rights Act.

Well then wouldn't it be useless to enact a ban unless we could secure our border to the south? They'll just smuggle guns in from Mexico to commit crimes the same way they smuggle drugs and people.

Good. We’re gonna go from private sales that dont require background checks in the middle of the country to dangerous and potentially unprofitable arms trade through the Mexican border. Ill take any constrictions to the supply. Itll price out wannabe High School shooters out of business.

Uh, ok.

Great answer.

[Vanoi]

Well gun control has been challenged legally and Heller vs. District of Columbia affirmed the right an individual to own a firearm but also affirmed that guns and the purchase of them could be restricted.

[Cope]

Good question. Regardless I do feel that with all 3 branches controlled by a single party they can more or less do what they want. The only thing which holds them back at this very moment is public opinion.

But you would need a 2/3 majority to change the constitution, irrespective of who controls the branches. This provides a sort of democratic protection which simply doesn't exist in countries like the United Kingdom. The government there can, assuming it holds a majority, theoretically change anything it wants at any time it wants to.

[Elfdude]

I mean, they don't necessarily need to change the constitution. Congress can pass a law changing the 2/3 majority to a simple majority and have it upheld by the Supreme Court. They could redraw the district lines, they could remove the political power of cities and give it more to rural districts, they could increase the voting age, they could remove voting rights from select groups etc etc etc. As they did with the filibuster.

Most votes requiring a higher standard have a variety of ways around them and the only real protection against that is public opinion and scruples. When the party has no scruples and is a tool of rich oligarchs it's really just about lulling the public into a false sense of security, or attacking truth wholesale to make it harder and harder to know what's correct.

[Cope]

I mean, they don't necessarily need to change the constitution. Congress can pass a law changing the 2/3 majority to a simple majority and have it upheld by the Supreme Court. They could redraw the district lines, they could remove the political power of cities and give it more to rural districts, they could increase the voting age, they could remove voting rights from select groups etc etc etc. As they did with the filibuster.

Most votes requiring a higher standard have a variety of ways around them and the only real protection against that is public opinion and scruples. When the party has no scruples and is a tool of rich oligarchs it's really just about lulling the public into a false sense of security, or attacking truth wholesale to make it harder and harder to know what's correct.

Any protections can be removed one way or another - hence the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. My point was that in countries like the United Kingdom, those protections are demonstrably much easier to remove than they are in the US. There is no codified constitution, there is no elected second chamber, no elected head of state and it is historically routine for a single party to dominate the Commons. The citizenry is also almost entirely disarmed.

[chilon]

I think the US is a flawed democracy and runs the risk of becoming a true autocracy since the 1970's court ruling that spending money was equivalent to free speech pushing out democracy and moving us more towards plutocracy. It's a small step from there to complete autocracy. I think most democracies in europe have stronger controls on this and there's at least currently a much stronger understanding of the government serves the people. The entire GOP platform and large portions of the dems platforms seem in my estimation to lead towards this eventuality begging the question of whether we will regain control of our democracy or if it will be stolen by the powers that be.

At the same time, the most effective counter to an autocratic state was not guns (i.e. poland) but I also think collective action in the US has been demolished in preparation for corporate and rich control whilst the public not only lets it happen but thinks they're making america great again by doing so.

Personally I don't think its a small step its a large one. I personally have faith in the checks and balances and Bill of Rights to prevent autocracy. If it ever got the point where the people try to use handguns and AR15s to protect themselves against F-22s and drone strikes its well past the point of no return.

[Pontifex Maximus]

I think the US is a flawed democracy and runs the risk of becoming a true autocracy since the 1970's court ruling that spending money was equivalent to free speech pushing out democracy and moving us more towards plutocracy.

That's the strongest possible argument in favor of maintaining the 2nd Amendment in its current form. Unfortunately none of this addresses the topic of policy for dealing with school shootings assuming the 2nd amendment stays in effect as is. In fact none of this discussion really is.

I was wondering when the C word would be deployed. It's the 21st century now, time for the US to move on. If the US can ban slavery , an evil countenanced by the founding fathers, it can restrict firearms. After all, Europeans are no longer obliged to provide service or scutage to peers of the realm, we aren't tied to quaint and ancient customs.

Slavery is illegal because of the Constitution.

[chilon]

Slavery is illegal because of the Constitution.

Well the 13th Amendment. The original version of the Constitution endorsed slavery and contained garbage like 3/5 "compromise"

[Elfdude]

Slavery is illegal because of the Constitution.

Because of an amendment to the constitution*

[Pontifex Maximus]

It's still the Constitution...

We have a procedure in place for amending the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment is unlikely to ever be revoked in our lifetime, it'sa waste of time to point at the 2A and say "aww shucks if it wasn't for that we would have no more violent crime"

Again none of this is on topic

I'm a fan of, if you own a MAGA hat you cannot own a gun myself.

So you're in favor of profiling an entire group of people and restricting their rights based on the actions of a few? I must have missed that in your discussion of the Muslim immigration ban.

[Derpy Hooves]

Good question. Regardless I do feel that with all 3 branches controlled by a single party they can more or less do what they want.

This shows you don't know how Congress works. If they could do whatever they wanted, tax cuts for individuals would not have to be renewed; health care and immigration reform (for good or for worse) would be done, and that's just off the top of my head. There are so many things Republicans cannot do because they don't have a super majority in the Senate, and the Dems refuse to work with them on any major legislation.

EDIT:
@chilon
If it does get to that point, assuming that hte military would fully back the government is completely insane, and if F-22s and drone strikes were all that were required, we wouldn't have as many troops in Afghanistan as we do.

Also that 3/5 compromise was included so as not to divide the country. Without it, US wouldn't have existed. It was needed at the time. Please tell me I don't have to explain the history of the 3/5 compromise?

[Gaidin]

Thoughts and prayers will fix this problem. Don't worry guys.

[Pontifex Maximus]

That’s comical coming from somebody who calls firearms “heavily regulated” as well as someone who doesn’t post their own evidence when they make their own claims in their replies. I read your OP and the unwillingness to actively encourage discussion of gun control is inane as cases like these are intrinsically tied to gun control. Attempts to downplay or discourage the obvious direction in which the conversation will go is intellectual cowardice.

Strawman. That's not what I said. I said it is the most highly regulated constitutional right, and I am right. It's been shown in the US that gun restrictions do not lead to less gun violence. Look at Chicago and Detroit if you don't believe me.

First of all, No they dont. Recent mass murders in Europe are a result of Islamic terror and not a social phenomena like it is in the United States. Even including those events Europe does not suffer from school shootings or mass murder with the regularity that America does.

So in other words, criminals will find a way to kill people regardless of the presence of guns.

Second I do get to compre them and it woukd be perfectly fair. Unless you’re trying to tell me that an American with Guatemalan heritage is somehow more different to a White American than a Norwegian is to a Turk, or an Algerian French. Your complaint has been noted, deconstructed, and dismissed.

I anxiously await your next argument which will necessarily compare Antarctica to the United States to show that the lack of guns on that continent has led to a crime rate of 0%. Wake up America!

Anywhere between a fifth to a third of Americans own firearms. Over 300 million firearms in circulation. Over 15 million concealed carry permit holders and over a million violent crimes in the U.S. annually. It is in fact statistically irrelevant. Its not even 1% of crime prevented by responsible gun owners. What a joke of an argument.

How many of those permit carriers committed a gun crime in 2017? I'll wait.

I did. And in no way are firearms “heavily regulated”. I have to go through more hassle to buy a regular vehicle than I do to buy a firearm.

You have constitutional right to own a firearm, you don't have a right to own a car. Ironically, the former requires a background check.

Strawman, but since we’re discussing the perfection that’s the Constitution tell me more about how many amendments we had to make just to make Black people equal citizens.

Strawman, red herring, Geronimo, buffalo bagels! Three, but this is comparing apples to oranges.

Any Constitutional arguments on this issue can go stuff themselves in a toilet and drown themselves. The Constitutional challenge to gun control is an issue of political will and legality, not one of policy or morality. Almost identically to the Civil Rights Act.

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you, thankfully.

Thoughts and prayers will fix this problem. Don't worry guys.

No it won't. Actually discussing policies and proposing them in municipalities, states, and townhall meetings might though. The 2A isn't going to be repealed or significantly curtailed, it's just a fact. Instead of dwelling on how nice everything would be if it was, I've tried to begi a discussion about what possible steps can be taken to avoid them in the future. When we sift through unhelpful, boasting, or rude comments like this we actually have gathered some very interesting information that could do a lot to curtail shootings in the future. Thanks for your comment though

[Gaidin]

I can't believe you replied to me in seriously. Also your idea of spreading different state and local policies everywhere given how often and how spread out these incidents are is one of your less smart ideas.

[Pontifex Maximus]

I can't believe you replied to me in seriously. Also your idea of spreading different state and local policies everywhere given how often and how spread out these incidents are is one of your less smart ideas.

Well I've watched three or four such posts go unanswered, as it should be, and since moderation doesn't seem to be interested in keeping this thread spam free or on topic, I'm hoping a little shame can put a stop to it. That also wasn't my idea at all, I think additional staff should be hired. I don't think we should spread police forces thin. I'll gladly fork over my fair share of taxes on a state or federal level to make it happen to hire these additional employees. It would be helpful to read the thread and reply instead of just dropping in some spam. So to that end, do you have a viable suggestion for how to prevent these sorts of scenarios, or are you just here to troll people you disagree with?