Mass Shooting Las Vegas...

[seer]

One instance in 30 years doesn't seem to make a particularly strong case for them. As I recall, the merchants also had illegal weapons like uzis and AK-47s, and probably could have held their own with shotguns and single-shot rifles as they could have assualt weapons.

And I think we have more gun ownership now than in the last 30 years, yet gun violence has gone down.

Rate Of U.S. Gun Violence Has Fallen Since 1993, Study Sayshttp://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/...ublic-unaware/

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...993-study-says

[Roy]

and one incident like Las Vegas in the entire history of the world does make a case for eliminating the 2nd amendment?

One incident? You have a short/selective memory.

Should we have banned airplanes after 9/11 too?

No, you should have enacted measures to prevent hijackers taking control of planes. Measures such as better scanning at airports and locked doors between cabins and cockpits.

[seer]

We have all sorts of laws banning freedoms that serve to protect people. I can't drive without a seatbelt, even though I enjoy the freedom of seatbelt-less driving. We have laws that prevent people from drinking and driving even though lots of people who drink and drive enjoy the freedom of getting home without calling a cab. Unless you're a libertarian (and last I remember, you're not), then the "we need guns to be free" argument doesn't really ring that true to me.

Driving a car is not a Constitutional right and therefore can be severely regulated by the states. It is a privilege, not a right.

[rogue06]

One instance in 30 years doesn't seem to make a particularly strong case for them. As I recall, the merchants also had illegal weapons like uzis and AK-47s, and probably could have held their own with shotguns and single-shot rifles as they could have assualt weapons.

It was an instance that immediately sprung to mind.

Hmm, I find that unlikely (not the background checks part, but the easier part).

I could show you how to make a liquid binary explosive that makes C-4 look weak in comparison just by mixing two chemicals that you can readily get from a large hobby store^[1] and grocery store. If you can make a mixed drink you can make this. The only impediment is that it requires a compound detonator to set it off.







1. There is another source for it where it is amazingly easy to acquire in substantial amounts that I won't mention since it might provide too much of a clue what it is and I have no desire to teach anyone how to do this.

[rogue06]

Driving a car is not a Constitutional right and therefore can be severely regulated by the states. It is a privilege, not a right.

Wrote about that awhile back...

Many modifications of firearms are illegal. If you saw the barrel off a shotgun or rifle to a certain length you are violating the law. If you convert your firearm to full automatic (relatively easy to do with many -- someone even patented a way to turn a old Colt revolver into an automatic weapon back in the 1860s!) you are violating the law. If you attach a noise suppressor to your firearm (unless you get a special federal license) you are violating the law. If you use them in a dangerous manner you can have them confiscated. And if you are convicted of a felony you often lose your right to own a firearm.

And there are several restrictions placed on firearms owners that are not imposed upon people who own an automobile.

• Anyone can purchase an automobile -- even if they're under 18 (if they pay cash).

• There is no waiting period to purchase an automobile

• You do not have to have a license to purchase an automobile.

• There is no limit how many cars you can own, or how many you can buy per month.

• You only need to register an automobile if you plan to drive it on the street.

• You can take your automobile into different jurisdictions without getting a license for each one you go into (and facing a felony and automatic confiscation for failure to do so)

• You can own and operate an automobile on public roads designed to break the law (cars that can exceed the speed limit by several fold)

If we treated autos like firearms then

• You'd pay for a car, register it and then have to wait up to two weeks before you can pick up your car.

• You must store your car where no child could access it (no leaving it on the street or the driveway).

• If a child were to take your car and harm himself or others you could be charged with a felony

• People under psychiatric care or convicted of a felony (or in some jurisdictions even merely accused of spousal abuse) could not either own or drive an automobile

• It would be illegal to directly buy a car from an out of state dealer or seller

• You could be arrested for taking your automobile across state lines or even into different counties or cities within the same state

Finally, as has been previously noted (but seems to be ignored) you do not have a right to own an automobile, or to drive one, but here in the U.S. we most certainly do have the right to own firearms.

And you're correct that while gun ownership is sharply up gun violence has dropped substantially over the past few decades

[seer]

More guns, less gun violence between 1993 and 2013

guns4.jpg

http://www.aei.org/publication/chart...1993-and-2013/

[Adrift]

and one incident like Las Vegas in the entire history of the world does make a case for eliminating the 2nd amendment?

Huh? It isn't one incident. It's many many multiple incidences.

Should we have banned airplanes after 9/11 too?

No, we should have found ways to prevent terrorists hijacking airplanes. So far it looks like our preventative measures (as imperfect as they currently are) have been working.

[seer]

Huh? It isn't one incident. It's many many multiple incidences.



No, we should have found ways to prevent terrorists hijacking airplanes. So far it looks like our preventative measures (as imperfect as they currently are) have been working.

See my last post Adrift, even with a rapid rate of gun ownership in the past 20 years or so gun violence has gone way down.

[Adrift]

See my last post Adrift, even with a rapid rate of gun ownership in the past 20 years or so gun violence has gone way down.

That's fantastic, though the newest Pew Research points out that while homicides have leveled off there has been an uptick in suicides. Now imagine how many fewer gun-related homicides and suicides would exist without guns altogether? I mean, I understand that the picture you're attempting to paint is that more guns means less gun violence, but that doesn't make any sense at all. Correlation does not equal causation. The reduction in gun violence could be due to all sorts of things. Maybe the people who'd go out gunning people down are too busy now playing video games... Who knows.

[seer]

That's fantastic, though the newest Pew Research points out that while homicides have leveled off there has been an uptick in suicides. Now imagine how many fewer gun-related homicides and suicides would exist without guns altogether? I mean, I understand that the picture you're attempting to paint is that more guns means less gun violence, but that doesn't make any sense at all. Correlation does not equal causation. The reduction in gun violence could be due to all sorts of things. Maybe the people who'd go out gunning people down are too busy now playing video games... Who knows.

No Adrift, my point is that more guns does not necessarily lead to more gun violence. And remember one of the worse mass shootings was at Virginia Tech where Seung-Hui Cho used run of the mill pistols, a 9mm and a 22 cal, to kill 32 people. So should have we banned pistols because of that?

[One Bad Pig]

We have all sorts of laws banning freedoms that serve to protect people. I can't drive without a seatbelt, even though I enjoy the freedom of seatbelt-less driving. We have laws that prevent people from drinking and driving even though lots of people who drink and drive enjoy the freedom of getting home without calling a cab.

There are laws prohibiting driving without a seatbelt and driving while intoxicated, but they don't prevent anyone from doing so; they merely establish consequences for getting caught.

Unless you're a libertarian (and last I remember, you're not), then the "we need guns to be free" argument doesn't really ring that true to me.

I'm not a libertarian, but let's not forget that the 2nd Amendment was intended as a check on the power of the federal government (just like the rest of the Bill of Rights).

[One Bad Pig]

That's fantastic, though the newest Pew Research points out that while homicides have leveled off there has been an uptick in suicides. Now imagine how many fewer gun-related homicides and suicides would exist without guns altogether? I mean, I understand that the picture you're attempting to paint is that more guns means less gun violence, but that doesn't make any sense at all. Correlation does not equal causation. The reduction in gun violence could be due to all sorts of things. Maybe the people who'd go out gunning people down are too busy now playing video games... Who knows.

I'm pretty sure that pretty much everyone contemplating suicide could use any number of methods to do so. I doubt that taking away guns would have much impact on the suicide rate; it's not like there aren't other ways to do so. This seems to be rather beside the point.

[Mountain Man]

That's fantastic, though the newest Pew Research points out that while homicides have leveled off there has been an uptick in suicides. Now imagine how many fewer gun-related homicides and suicides would exist without guns altogether?

Sure, it might reduce violent gun crime, but would it reduce violent crime overall? Seems if someone is intent on committing murder or suicide then being denied a gun wouldn't be much of a hinderance.

[Adrift]

No Adrift, my point is that more guns does not necessarily lead to more gun violence. And remember one of the worse mass shootings was at Virginia Tech where Seung-Hui Cho used run of the mill pistols, a 9mm and a 22 cal, to kill 32 people. So should have we banned pistols because of that?

I'd be okay with that.

[Mountain Man]

I'd be okay with that.

I'm sure you would, but the question is, would banning guns lead to an overall reduction in the rate of violent crime? If it wouldn't then what's the point?