Why were 20 people shot dead and 24 injured in El Paso today, and what’s causing the recent trend since the 90s of mass shootings and massacres.

[Love Mountain]

I think there's a golden mean between anarchy and government monopoly on justice. In a society where justice is dispensed perfectly, there's no need for people to take matters into their own hands. But when the government fails in its duties and doesn't punish criminals properly, people will try to pick up the slack. This is one area where the right to keep and bear arms comes in quite handy.

Sure, but are you arguing in favor of self-defense or vigilantism?

I don't see what's emotional about it. The majority of grooming gangs in the UK are Pakistani, if I recall correctly, so imprisoning all Pakistanis would get rid of most grooming gangs, in the same way that imprisoning all AR-15 owners would get rid of mass shootings.

The right to keep and bear arms is a human right, no different from any other right. Either human rights violations are an acceptable means of reducing crime or they aren't. You can't advocate human rights violations in one breath and in the next breath condemn them as intrinsically wrong.

Any level of government will always encroach, and therefore violate, your human right to liberty. Different societies have different levels of this agreement in order to suit their local needs. Gun control is no different in that regard.

[The spartan]

I think there's a golden mean between anarchy and government monopoly on justice. In a society where justice is dispensed perfectly, there's no need for people to take matters into their own hands. But when the government fails in its duties and doesn't punish criminals properly, people will try to pick up the slack. This is one area where the right to keep and bear arms comes in quite handy.

Annnnd you think that golden mean lies somewhere on the line of extra-judicially executing people in government custody who are awaiting trial? Sounds like one messed up society to me, I wouldn't want to live in it. And the government didn't "fail in it's duties" in the example you linked, the guy was awaiting trial. The act of the father was just that of misguided vengeance and he should be (and I assume, was) prosecuted for murder.

I don't see what's emotional about it. The majority of grooming gangs in the UK are Pakistani, if I recall correctly, so imprisoning all Pakistanis would get rid of most grooming gangs, in the same way that imprisoning all AR-15 owners would get rid of mass shootings.

Ok, but you said "1 million British girls raped by Pakistanis" and then linked an article that didn't say that at all.

Also, I am not in favor of imprisoning all Pakistanis or all AR-15 owners. I know a couple AR-15 owners, I would rather them not go to prison seeing as how they haven't broke the law. I would hope you feel the same way about Pakistanis.

The right to keep and bear arms is a human right, no different from any other right. Either human rights violations are an acceptable means of reducing crime or they aren't. You can't advocate human rights violations in one breath and in the next breath condemn them as intrinsically wrong.

Yeah, no emotional appeal here.

I don't think I have ever heard that accessibility to weaponry was a "human right". We do have the 2nd Amendment in the US, but you are really stretching to call that a "human right". Moreover, from all the research I have seen, gun ownership rates in particular areas of the US has little to do with the overall crime rate of the area; there are often much more potent contributors or reducers of crime. Quality of education and stable parental households come to mind. "More guns" does not seem to reduce crime much if at all.

[Caduet]

The act of the father was just that of misguided vengeance and he should be (and I assume, was) prosecuted for murder.

5 years probation for manslaughter lol. you do realize the law is just a joke, right? Dad's a hero for what he did and it is good that the inviolate nature of the law was cast aside to reflect that.

[95thrifleman]

5 years probation for manslaughter lol. you do realize the law is just a joke, right? Dad's a hero for what he did and it is good that the inviolate nature of the law was cast aside to reflect that.

So you advocate throwing way the rule of law and letting people kill each other if they feel justified?

[The spartan]

5 years probation for manslaughter lol. you do realize the law is just a joke, right? Dad's a hero for what he did and it is good that the inviolate nature of the law was cast aside to reflect that.

Whatever society you are talking about, I wouldn't want to live in it.

[Prodromos]

Annnnd you think that golden mean lies somewhere on the line of extra-judicially executing people in government custody who are awaiting trial? Sounds like one messed up society to me, I wouldn't want to live in it. And the government didn't "fail in it's duties" in the example you linked, the guy was awaiting trial. The act of the father was just that of misguided vengeance and he should be (and I assume, was) prosecuted for murder.

I don't know why you keep talking about this guy, it was just an example to show the difference between America and most of the rest of the world. In America, the individual has a lot of power. It can be used for good or for evil. You might not like it, you might find it scary, but I guess that's the difference between you and me; I find the tempestuous sea of liberty far more preferable to the calm waters of tyranny.

Ok, but you said "1 million British girls raped by Pakistanis" and then linked an article that didn't say that at all.

Also, I am not in favor of imprisoning all Pakistanis or all AR-15 owners. I know a couple AR-15 owners, I would rather them not go to prison seeing as how they haven't broke the law. I would hope you feel the same way about Pakistanis.

Yeah, no emotional appeal here.

I don't think I have ever heard that accessibility to weaponry was a "human right". We do have the 2nd Amendment in the US, but you are really stretching to call that a "human right". Moreover, from all the research I have seen, gun ownership rates in particular areas of the US has little to do with the overall crime rate of the area; there are often much more potent contributors or reducers of crime. Quality of education and stable parental households come to mind. "More guns" does not seem to reduce crime much if at all.

There's no difference between punishing someone for being Pakistani and punishing them for owning a gun. Neither is against any law. You can certainly deny that self-defense is a human right, just as a Nazi can deny that life is a human right.

[mongrel]

I think there's a golden mean between anarchy and government monopoly on justice. In a society where justice is dispensed perfectly, there's no need for people to take matters into their own hands. But when the government fails in its duties and doesn't punish criminals properly, people will try to pick up the slack. This is one area where the right to keep and bear arms comes in quite handy.



I don't see what's emotional about it. The majority of grooming gangs in the UK are Pakistani, if I recall correctly, so imprisoning all Pakistanis would get rid of most grooming gangs, in the same way that imprisoning all AR-15 owners would get rid of mass shootings.

Imprisoning white people would eliminate baby and toddler paedophile rings in the UK and put a massive dent into the grooming of children online. But I'm not a racist , so I'm not going to suggest that as some sort of dead cat bounce detractracting from the fact that the US has a murderous racist nutjob problem.


I don't see the owning of AR15s being listed as one of the items listed in the Unversal Declaration of Human Rights. Even if I were to humour you and accept that this deluded idiot had every right to have a gun, he had no right to kill several people to promote a daft racist theory.

And how is a Government had to account by loons with death toys? The Deadliest Warrior show featuring some deadbeat backwoods militia man with zombie-killer knife and AR-15 against spotty Army kid armed with a cup of coffee and Predator drone would be a short show indeed.

[The spartan]

I don't know why you keep talking about this guy, it was just an example to show the difference between America and most of the rest of the world. In America, the individual has a lot of power. It can be used for good or for evil. You might not like it, you might find it scary, but I guess that's the difference between you and me; I find the tempestuous sea of liberty far more preferable to the calm waters of tyranny.

Nice flowery language, but your using it to dress up extra-judicial killing as "good". It's the people who claim they have super-judicial right to kill certain people "for good" that you should really worry about. They can justify doing some truly heinous things with that logic.

There's no difference between punishing someone for being Pakistani and punishing them for owning a gun. Neither is against any law. You can certainly deny that self-defense is a human right, just as a Nazi can deny that life is a human right.

You brought up an unsubstantiated claim, not me. If that article was in fact your source, it is clear you pulled the "1 million British girls have been raped by Pakistanis" out of your butt which is, uh, weird.

And you really tortured the framing of what I just said. Of course I think people have a right to self-defense, what exactly does that have to do with firearm ownership being a "human right"?

[Prodromos]

Imprisoning white people would eliminate baby and toddler paedophile rings in the UK and put a massive dent into the grooming of children online. But I'm not a racist , so I'm not going to suggest that

Another good example. So, we should only prosecute pedophiles, not white people in general, right? Great. Likewise, we should only prosecute mass shooters and other people who misuse their guns, not all gun owners. Human rights can't be discarded just because we want to reduce the crime rate.

[Ludicus]

From the news,
Amnesty International has issued a travel warning for visitors to the US due to ongoing "rampant gun violence", advising people to exercise caution in public spaces.
According to a press release from the organization, the advisory is meant to mimic similar travel advisories that the US State Department issues to Americans visiting other countries.


-------
Immigration officials arrested 680 mostly Latino workers today at food processing plants in Mississippi, in the largest workplace sting in at least a decade, according to the Associated Press.

From what I've heard, in this national emergence, the shock troops of Trump, the right wing borders militias, are offering their services as voluntary workers.Their leader explains to the press:"this will affect economy: without us, how you will get your chicken?"

[Cyclops]

Another good example. So, we should only prosecute pedophiles, not white people in general, right? Great. Likewise, we should only prosecute mass shooters and other people who misuse their guns, not all gun owners. Human rights can't be discarded just because we want to reduce the crime rate.

My old man was a lawyer and often commented on US legal discussions taking on French style first principle philosophical dimensions. "If X then Y" and applying those airy fairy ideas to real life leads to mismatches. it does make for a strong governing principle, but leads to all those imagined consequences. You can use a principle to disguise some hideous evil too.

"Are guns dangerous? Should they be licensed?" are of course relevant questions. However more important are "what are the results of the current regulation regime and its implementation?" Gun advocates on this site in past iterations of this discussion have stated that implementation of gun laws in the US is sloppy at best. There's patchwork of jurisdictions, and local application of existing laws is inconsistent. If that's the case the a logical first step would be to apply current laws consistently.

That's actually a problem in itself as was seen at Waco where (among an absolute dogs breakfast of problems) the attitudes of more or less lawful gun dealers and the ATF led to a firefight and massacre. IIRC the agents there thought the the "seals" the Branch Davidians preached about were aquatic mammals. Its fair to say that cultural differences between groups of citizens and the federal and state administrations are deep enough to be lethal.

There are African Americans who assume cops will shoot them for no reason, and rural whites who assume the central authorities will take their weapons because some liberal in the city is uncomfortable. Both have experiences that support their paranoia.

A guns not a toy, its a tool like a car. Used incorrectly its dangerous, guns should be licensed as closely as cars. Is that a fair principle? The gun cult where somehow a gun equal freedom seems stupid to me, but if you treat all the gun owners as stupid and take away their toys a lot of cops will die doing that.

Using massacres as a political leverage for gun law reform is tricky because massacres are a fraction of gun deaths and really a minor part of the problem. Terrorist massacres are mostly a political problem, with social and mental health aspects too. The problems of depression and suicide need quite different solutions as does that problem of drug gangs shooting each other up and that's where most of the gun deaths are.

[Caduet]

So you advocate throwing way the rule of law and letting people kill each other if they feel justified?

That's already how things work. "Rule of law" is just a facade for "might is right". The reason people don't speed while driving is not because of safety, its because the state will fine them if they get caught. If they resist the fine, they go to jail. If they resist arrest they get shot (in America at least). Normally its just the elites who get to enjoy the joke, I'm not going to begrudge fellow proles for getting to laugh as well.

Whatever society you are talking about, I wouldn't want to live in it.

Uhoh. As we've just proved, you already live in that society. Pretty sure a disconnect from society is a mass-shooter red flag.

Imprisoning white people would eliminate baby and toddler paedophile rings in the UK and put a massive dent into the grooming of children online.

israelis are not white

And how is a Government had to account by loons with death toys? The Deadliest Warrior show featuring some deadbeat backwoods militia man with zombie-killer knife and AR-15 against spotty Army kid armed with a cup of coffee and Predator drone would be a short show indeed.

The United States with its historically unprecedented military might has an unbroken string of humiliating defeats against insurgencies. We lost to the Viet Cong, we lost to the Taliban, and we lost in Iraq. The US Armed Forces would stand absolutely zero chance against an American insurgency.

[The spartan]

Uhoh. As we've just proved, you already live in that society. Pretty sure a disconnect from society is a mass-shooter red flag.

The guy wasn't prosecuted? It's lame he only got manslaughter, I don't know the specifics of the case, but we do not usually tolerate extra-judicial violence meted out by people who think they are in the right to do so. Law enforcement goes after these people.

[Caduet]

The guy wasn't prosecuted? It's lame he only got manslaughter, I don't know the specifics of the case, but we do not usually tolerate extra-judicial violence meted out by people who think they are in the right to do so. Law enforcement goes after these people.

His prosecution just made an even bigger mockery of the law. What he did was cold, planned and premeditated. It was not a heat of the moment crime of passion. It was murder by any definition, not manslaughter. Plauche took a huge dump on the law and then the law chose to eat it up. Because the law knows its just a joke. I'm just glad a righteous individual like Plauche got to enjoy the failure of Western "law" for a change. Usually its only the Epsteins and Weinsteins and Pollards of the world who get to enjoy that.

[Ludicus]

most western countries are not as religious any more, and therefore less likely to hold certain values

Less likely to hold...certain values? Yes, I agree. But- are they good, those"religious values?" what exactly this means?

they should not want to engage in too much violence against their citizens for fear of armed reprisal

So, do you have an imaginary fear of a government of zombies suddenly infected by the virus of communism?
On a socialism debate published in 1914, John Basil Barnhill wrote it. But there is no evidence that Jefferson said or wrote something like that. So, do you think that a strong reason for the people to retain/keep arm is as a last resort, to protect themselves against an hypothetical tyranny? if this is the case, who decides when to start a revolution? what kind of revolution?
It's a flawed and even dangerous argument: you see, the people doesn't have a single hive mind. Should I join enlist in the red, the white, or the pink revolutionary army?

[Bob69Joe]

LEFTists need to be deported from America. That's how this violence will end. The Civil War of America empowered government to impose itself on individuals and expand tax and spend bureaucracy. Read Plato bros. Democracy leads to tyranny. Import the foreigners - 1840s Irish - and swing the politics.

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html

[mongrel]

Another good example. So, we should only prosecute pedophiles, not white people in general, right? Great. Likewise, we should only prosecute mass shooters and other people who misuse their guns, not all gun owners. Human rights can't be discarded just because we want to reduce the crime rate.

Daftness. Gun control prohibits certain firearms, it doesn't prosecute anyone staying within the law.

LEFTists need to be deported from America. That's how this violence will end. The Civil War of America empowered government to impose itself on individuals and expand tax and spend bureaucracy. Read Plato bros. Democracy leads to tyranny. Import the foreigners - 1840s Irish - and swing the politics.

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html

A good advert for explaining why some people can't be trusted with guns.
Damnable nonsense. What part of 20 people shot dead and 24 injured by some racist nutjob are you failing to grasp.

israelis are not white

I didn't refer to Israelis,they obviously don't live in the UK.

The United States with its historically unprecedented military might has an unbroken string of humiliating defeats against insurgencies. We lost to the Viet Cong, we lost to the Taliban, and we lost in Iraq. The US Armed Forces would stand absolutely zero chance against an American insurgency.

In each case the US were invaders .

[Common Soldier]

What do you mean by "gun control" then? It seems like US already has gun control and it doesn't really have a huge gun problem.

Even.though only a small percentage of people are killed by guns in the US, it is still a larger percentage than in other countries. How many people killed by mass shooting a year is considered acceptable? Some would argue that even one unnecessary death is one too many.

And in certain populations, guns are very much a problem. The leading cause.of death among young African males is homicide, and most of those are due to guns, by young African males killing other young African males. Unfortunately, the media attention and the Black Lives Matters have focused their attention on thd the few police shootings and the the shootings like Tayvon Martin, and ignored the other 90% shootings of blacks shot by blacks.

Over-regulation did also cause mass-famines.

Under regulations can equally cause problems. Many regulations and laws.xome about because of bad things happening when there weren't regulations in place. Cars were made to have seatbelts when accident studies revealed that many injuries and deaths occurred when occupants were ejected from the vehicle, which seatbelrs could prevent. As a result of these and other regulations, automobile deaths have declined.

However, simply having a regulations doesn't necessarily solve the problem. Banning assault rifles if majority of mass shootings don't involve.assault rifles is not going to solve the problem of mass shootings.

[Heathen Hammer]

In general US military is excellent for conventional warfare, Cold War style, but it has been delivered embarrassing defeats from poorly-equipped, but motivated insurgents. I doubt they would fare better when there is obviously less moral as enemy is your compatriots, and likely friends, family members or relatives. Whole units would refuse to fight or even defect, while typically most loyal to the state would be the ones with least combat capabilities.
Not to mention that if US military got defeated by half-starved peasants in third-world countries, one would presume that militias which typically consist of people with combat experience and military training would be a tougher opponent then those that already defeated US military.
One can only imagine what goes on in heads of sociopath leftists who fantasize about "quelling right-wing rebellion" or things of that sort.

Even.though only a small percentage of people are killed by guns in the US, it is still a larger percentage than in other countries. How many people killed by mass shooting a year is considered acceptable? Some would argue that even one unnecessary death is one too many.

And in certain populations, guns are very much a problem. The leading cause.of death among young African males is homicide, and most of those are due to guns, by young African males killing other young African males. Unfortunately, the media attention and the Black Lives Matters have focused their attention on thd the few police shootings and the the shootings like Tayvon Martin, and ignored the other 90% shootings of blacks shot by blacks.

That seems like more of a social issue then gun issue. Gang crime inn general can be significantly reduced by ending "war on drugs".
Not to mention that the whole "gun problem" is mainly over-imagined, mainly due to sensationalism and propaganda from mainstream media. In reality, violent crime rates in US have been steadily decreasing.

Under regulations can equally cause problems. Many regulations and laws.xome about because of bad things happening when there weren't regulations in place. Cars were made to have seatbelts when accident studies revealed that many injuries and deaths occurred when occupants were ejected from the vehicle, which seatbelrs could prevent. As a result of these and other regulations, automobile deaths have declined.

However, simply having a regulations doesn't necessarily solve the problem. Banning assault rifles if majority of mass shootings don't involve.assault rifles is not going to solve the problem of mass shootings.

Mass shootings seem to be rather rare and statistically marginal. Mortality of Americans has much more to do with factors like poor healthcare, obesity, car accidents, etc.

[Caduet]

In each case the US were invaders .

Yea, I'm sure drone-striking a wedding full of American citizens instead of Iraqi civilians would somehow make the job for the US military easier. Look at precursor events like Waco and Ruby Ridge.