13 Dead, 20 Wounded...

[Cow Poke]

That's an argument but generally not the argument. As an argument, it's inherently weak, as I noted to Rogue, because the question is not "how far should our society go to fix the problem without altering or reinterpreting the 2nd Amendment?" but rather "how far should our society go to fix the problem?"

You can frame a question any way you want, Sam - that doesn't mean that's real life.

If

HEAVY on the "if"

the modern interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (and we are talking about a very modern interpretation) is leading to mass shootings every few weeks and an incredibly high amount of homicides and firearm-related crime, we should change the Constitution. No one today would argue against abolishing slavery because owning slaves was a constitutionally-protected right. It's a terrible argument when given even cursory scrutiny.

So, you're going to produce proof now that your "if" is true, yes?

Which is why most people don't make that the argument. The argument is usually about family protection and, failing that, societal safety ("more guns = less crime"). Finally (at least before resorting to the constitutional appeal), it's an argument against "tyranny". On each and every level, the arguments fail to pass scrutiny and the rationale boils down to a basic denial of comprehensive facts and a persistent desire to maintain the illusion of safety and control.

Based on the perception that the Constitution guarantees us that right, Sam. You'd have to convince the majority of Americans that the 2nd Amendment is not about the right to bear arms.

[Roy]

Bidirectional? Perhaps you mean bipartisan?

Maybe - I construed the "they" in your post to refer to the liberals mentioned earlier, but maybe that wasn't your intent.

When ANY government entity, personality, body, whatever - pushes hard on a "we have to make this major change because....", there needs to be a general consensus that, indeed, the threat is real and justifies the major change in policy or procedure.

True. Not trusting politicians is something USAns and UKers have very much in common.

[Cow Poke]

Well, I'm even less sanguine about getting Conservatives to put down their tin-foil perceptions of the "liberal agenda"

Yeah, that's a great starter... "let's have a serious discussion about the real issues, you tin-foil nutjobs".

than getting 'em to read and recognize gun violence studies. Politicizing mass shootings in order to reduce mass shootings

How's that workin for ya?

A BETTER response would be to analyze what's really happening - WHY these (for the most part) social misfits are acting out.

[Sam]

So, you're going to produce proof now that your "if" is true, yes?

I've been citing studies throughout this thread showing just that, Cow Poke.

[Cow Poke]

Maybe - I construed the "they" in your post to refer to the liberals mentioned earlier, but maybe that wasn't your intent.

In this case, it's mostly the liberals, so they were "they".

True. Not trusting politicians is something USAns and UKers have very much in common.

Yeah, it's like the IRS showing up at my door and saying "I'm here to help you".

[Cow Poke]

I've been citing studies throughout this thread showing just that, Cow Poke.

Maybe that's part of the problem, Sam --- you're all "graphs and charts and studies", and ANYBODY can google a study that supports their goofy conclusions.... so, again, I ask ... how's that workin for ya?

Maybe it's time to try a new approach.

[Roy]

It seems odd that only two of the four potential positions would be occupied.

Would you mind unpacking that a bit?

Not at all.

If the two divides conservative/liberal and gun_rights/gun_restriction are independent, there should be four combinations seen:
- conservatives who support gun rights
- liberals who support gun restrictions
- liberals who support gun rights
- conservatives who support gun restrictions

But the latter two never seem to arise.

[Cow Poke]

Not at all.

If the two divides conservative/liberal and gun_rights/gun_restriction are independent, there should be four combinations seen:
- conservatives who support gun rights
- liberals who support gun restrictions
- liberals who support gun rights
- conservatives who support gun restrictions

But the latter two never seem to arise.

Ah, yes.... I get it.

But I guess we're back to, for whatever reasons, it's generally conservatives (of either party) who support gun rights (and freedom in general) and liberals (of either party) who favor more of a "government can solve this problem" attitude.

I think that's part of the fundamental makeup of a conservative vs a democrat. Conservatives want less government control.

[Sam]

Yeah, that's a great starter... "let's have a serious discussion about the real issues, you tin-foil nutjobs".



How's that workin for ya?



A BETTER response would be to analyze what's really happening - WHY these (for the most part) social misfits are acting out.

I think you misunderstand. I'm not out here looking to persuade the tin-foil nutjobs who are going to fight (maybe quite literally) to oppose any and every gun regulation that has a chance of reducing these kinds of crimes and deaths. That's a useless endeavor, as Jonathan Swift noted. The goal is to showcase how irrational and even depraved their reasoning can be. The hearts and minds gun control advocates need to win are not those of the staunch gun-freedom-at-any-cost crowd. That's not possible. It's the folks on the outside and, most likely, the younger generations.

[Sam]

Maybe that's part of the problem, Sam --- you're all "graphs and charts and studies", and ANYBODY can google a study that supports their goofy conclusions.... so, again, I ask ... how's that workin for ya?

Maybe it's time to try a new approach.

You asked when I was going to offer proof of the conditional assertion; I noted that I've been doing so all along.

Whether that's effective or not relies on the audience, at some point. And if the folks around this debate board aren't interested in actually discussing the facts of the matter, they're not interested in being persuaded.

[Cow Poke]

You asked when I was going to offer proof of the conditional assertion; I noted that I've been doing so all along.

Cool.

Whether that's effective or not relies on the audience, at some point. And if the folks around this debate board aren't interested in actually discussing the facts of the matter, they're not interested in being persuaded.

When have you EVER been interested in being persuaded, Sam? Or is that just something for everybody else.

[Roy]

But I guess we're back to, for whatever reasons, it's generally conservatives (of either party) who support gun rights (and freedom in general) and liberals (of either party) who favor more of a "government can solve this problem" attitude.

I think that's part of the fundamental makeup of a conservative vs a democrat. Conservatives want less government control.

Did you mean "a conservative vs a liberal"? You earlier implied that there are people who are both conservative and democrat.*

Roy

*Which is leading me to wonder whether there is actually any difference between republicans and democrats if they can't be categorised as either liberal/conservative or pro/anti-government control (or gun rights/restrictions). Maybe I need more axes.**

**Axes are allowed under the 2nd amendment, right?

[Cow Poke]

I think you misunderstand. I'm not out here looking to persuade the tin-foil nutjobs who are going to fight (maybe quite literally) to oppose any and every gun regulation that has a chance of reducing these kinds of crimes and deaths. That's a useless endeavor, as Jonathan Swift noted. The goal is to showcase how irrational and even depraved their reasoning can be. The hearts and minds gun control advocates need to win are not those of the staunch gun-freedom-at-any-cost crowd. That's not possible. It's the folks on the outside and, most likely, the younger generations.

I think recent polling shows you're losing that battle there, Sam. I don't have time right now to list them, but I just found several polls (including Pew and Gallup) that show that younger people are less and less for gun control, and, to my mild surprise, affirmative action.

Perhaps if your team was more interested in gun SAFETY rather than CONTROL, people would be willing to listen.

[Cow Poke]

Did you mean "a conservative vs a liberal"?

Yes, exactly - thanks

You earlier implied that there are people who are both conservative and democrat.*

Yes, I was typing too fast.

Roy

*Which is leading me to wonder whether there is actually any difference between republicans and democrats if they can't be categorised as either liberal/conservative or pro/anti-government control (or gun rights/restrictions). Maybe I need more axes.**

In my own humble but accurate opinion, there used to be FAR more "conservative Democrats" (like my Dad) in the old days, but that party has been hijacked by the baby killers and "let's make everything about race" nuts and the "let's put God in the closet and let everybody else out" crowd.

**Axes are allowed under the 2nd amendment, right?

So far - that could change without notice!

[rogue06]

sacred document Constitution that will, at least, mitigate the problem.

Crime has been dropping for decades; that's neither here nor there. Homicides and firearm-related deaths are still much, much higher than in similarly advanced countries. "Yay, our score is a little less awful and embarrassing" isn't much of a rallying cry.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

This post got me thinking last night. I think Sam is right and we should stop worrying about things that are "anachronistic ... unnecessary and counterproductive to modern advanced democracies" whenever we want to do something and get serious on cracking down on violent crime.

Now, by every measure blacks make up between 12 and 13% of the population and yet they account for roughly 50% of the violent crimes. And actually it is not all blacks but predominantly black males between a certain age -- roughly 15 and 35. So it is in fact a tiny subset within the black community. If they were removed from society we could reasonably expect to see the violent crime rate slashed in half.

Now I can hear the objections from those who have "fetishize[d]" the "anachronistic ... unnecessary and counterproductive" ideas that we are protected by laws and enjoy certain rights but obviously we need to put the lives of the victims over such silly things. So we simply ignore such things and lock up or deport all black males between 15 and 35.

No need to pass any laws. That's just "an entirely anachronistic element, unnecessary and counterproductive to modern advanced democracies."

No need to conduct fair trials or trials at all. After all such "modern interpretations" of the Amendments enumerating those protections are obviously "an entirely anachronistic element, unnecessary and counterproductive to modern advanced democracies."

Our rights should rely upon the whim of the moment and whenever they become inconvenient they should be regarded as nothing more than a nuisance impediment that they are and simply disregarded. See how simple things would be in Sam-land!

And in seriousness your statement concerning the "quite modern interpretation of the 2nd Amendment" is absolute garbage and I demonstrated that in another thread where I showed that it was how it had been interpreted from its inception, through the 19th century and well into the 20th century until a hand full of legal scholars tried to change it. I also cited several of the top modern liberal legal scholars who openly acknowledged that your interpretation was in fact the "quite modern interpretation of the 2nd Amendment."