SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow8093
State laws that require gun purchasers to obtain a license contingent on passing a background check performed by state or local law enforcement are associated with a 14 percent reduction in firearm homicides in large, urban counties.
Studies have shown that these laws, which are sometimes called permit-to-purchase licensing laws, are associated with fewer firearm homicides at the state level. This is the first study to measure the impact of licensing laws on firearm homicides in large, urban counties, where close to two-thirds of all gun deaths in the U.S. occur.
The study was published online May 22 in the Journal of Urban Health and was written by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, based at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis.
Handgun licensing laws typically require prospective gun purchasers to apply directly to a state or local law enforcement agency to obtain a purchase permit, which is dependent on passing a background check, prior to approaching a seller. Many state licensing laws also require applicants to submit fingerprints.
The study also found that states that only required so-called comprehensive background checks (CBCs) -- that is, did not include other licensing requirements -- were associated with a 16 percent increase in firearm homicides in the large, urban counties. In states that only require a CBC the gun seller or dealer, not law enforcement, typically carries out the background check.
"Background checks are intended to screen out prohibited individuals, and serve as the foundation upon which other gun laws are built, but they may not be sufficient on their own to decrease gun homicides," said Cassandra Crifasi, PhD, MPH, assistant professor with the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research and the paper's lead author. "This study extends what we know about the beneficial effects of a licensing system on gun homicides to large, urban counties across the United States."
In addition to sending potential purchasers to law enforcement and requiring fingerprints, state licensing laws provide a longer period for law enforcement to conduct background checks. These checks may have access to more records, increasing the likelihood that law enforcement can identify and screen out those with a prohibiting condition. Surveys from the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research find that the majority of both gun owners and non-gun owners support this policy.
[...] For the study, a sample of 136 of the largest, urban counties in the U.S. was created for 1984-2015 and analyses were conducted to assess the effects of changes to the policies over time.
The study also examined the impact of right-to-carry (RTC) and stand- your-ground (SYG) laws. SYG laws give individuals expanded protections for use of lethal force in response to a perceived threat, and RTC laws make it easier for people to carry loaded, concealed firearms in public spaces.
The researchers found that counties in states that adopted SYG laws experienced a seven percent increase in firearm homicide, and counties in states with RTC laws experienced a four percent increase firearm homicide after the state's adoption of the RTC law.
"Our research finds that state laws that encourage more public gun carrying with fewer restrictions on who can carry experience more gun homicides in the state's large, urban counties than would have been expected had the law not been implemented," said Crifasi. "Similarly, stand-your-ground laws appear to make otherwise non-lethal encounters deadly if people who are carrying loaded weapons feel emboldened to use their weapons versus de-escalating a volatile situation."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 06 2018, @01:49AM (86 children)
Freedom isn't negotiable. Time and time again, all around the world, this is a step toward confiscation. Sound good to you? Guns were confiscated from Jews in Germany...
In other news, we can save children by banning pools.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 06 2018, @01:53AM (3 children)
... and Japs, too. So, there's that.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday June 06 2018, @04:54AM (2 children)
Guns are always confiscated by tyrants. They can't enslave you if you can fight back. It's an easy way to tell who's a tyrant.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mhajicek on Wednesday June 06 2018, @05:11AM (1 child)
It's not a right if you have to ask permission.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 06 2018, @05:24PM
Just let it happen.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Mykl on Wednesday June 06 2018, @02:55AM (51 children)
It's wonderful that you think freedom is all about owning guns (and not about the freedom to be safe from being shot by a gun-nut). Of course, you realise that you have already negotiated your 2nd amendment:
Where exactly in that statement does it say that you can't own any of the above?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 06 2018, @03:39AM (1 child)
Supreme court justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas have expressed the view that current law is in violation of the 2nd amendment, and that previous supreme court rulings have been in error. Hopefully all the commie justices take up a hobby like wingsuit base jumping, cave diving, volcanology, Everest climbing, meth, heroin, or homebuilt aircraft.
A restrictive view of the 2nd amendment is that it only allows typical guns carried by infantry. (the militia) That would at minimum allow for full auto, but perhaps not belt-fed or crew-served weapons. A slightly more liberal **ahem** view is that it allows artillery, grenade launchers, and stuff like the gun carried by the A-10. A very liberal view allows even more; our country was founded by people who personally owned top-grade military equipment.
Real flamethrowers are available in most states. Let's calculate the chance of being killed by one, and compare it with things like cars, swimming pools... heck, even staircases and bathtubs.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by janrinok on Wednesday June 06 2018, @08:10AM
So, if people don't agree with you they are automatically a 'Commie'? That's not a good way to begin an argument that you hope will sway the opinions of others. From the way you write I will assume that the majority of the people in the US are somewhat to the left of your own position, but to anyone outside the US that doesn't make them anything like left wing. Just sayin'.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 06 2018, @03:44AM (7 children)
The US already has that and at a higher level than your freedom to be safe in the shower or not dying from influenza.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 06 2018, @05:19AM (3 children)
Question - in what class the above arguments should be placed:
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday June 06 2018, @09:23AM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday June 06 2018, @11:23AM (1 child)
How about being realistic and admitting the government can do nothing to stop you dying by slipping in the bath but can do something more to lower the chances to be shot by a gun-nut?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Wednesday June 06 2018, @11:35AM
That wouldn't be realistic. Merely mandating anti-slip surfaces in tubs sold would save more lives than a perfect elimination of getting shot by gun-nut. I'm not saying it's a good idea to do either, but just pointing out that there is a feasible approach to reducing deaths from falling in baths and such that would exceed any possible gain from attacking the rights of gun-nuts.
(Score: 3, Troll) by aristarchus on Wednesday June 06 2018, @09:34AM (2 children)
khallow, it's the stats again, isn't it?
Notice the OP was not speaking of the odds of being nutted by a gun-safe, but of the freedom (100%, or 0% of violation) to not be shot by gun-nut. And clearly the chances of not being safe from being shot by gun-nuts is higher in American than in any other nation, except Texas. Oh, and that influenza thing? No so true anymore. Update your facts, khallow. It will help you be more effective in arguments.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday June 06 2018, @11:11AM (1 child)
Let us note that the chance of "violation" is on the order of 1 in a million maybe less. There are very few deaths per year from gun-nuts in the first place (yes, at most a few hundred deaths a year). Most deaths are from suicide, homicide in the course of commission of some other crime, and accidental shootings (recall that one merely needs to irresponsibly handle or store a single firearm in order to create the circumstances of an accidental shooting, handling or storing incorrect a few dozen more fire arms doesn't change the risk substantially). Further, death by gun-nut is heavily discouraged by law enforcement and the court system - in other words, there is already a huge amount of institutional compliance with this imaginary right.
So why again should we impose on the rights of hundreds of millions of peoples' rights for some small, possibly purely imaginary gain?
It's still orders of magnitude more deaths per year, mostly from respiratory complications in the young and elderly.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday June 08 2018, @11:09PM
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/child-flu-deaths-his-record-high-2017-2018-n881381 [nbcnews.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday June 06 2018, @04:59AM (27 children)
Maybe you have, I haven't. My rights do not come from the government and I have not agreed to limit them to appease it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday June 06 2018, @09:35AM (4 children)
Yep, way off the res'. I predict this will not end well.
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday June 06 2018, @03:08PM (2 children)
That's some racist shit there. Why do some people belong on a reservation? And, why do you disparage them when the get off the reservation? Racist damned lefty!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday June 07 2018, @03:18AM (1 child)
You saying indians can't have reservations? You racist bastard! I'm not waiting in long-ass lines at a restaurant, paleface.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 07 2018, @02:05PM
*my best Obama voice* If you like your reservation, you can keep your reservation! All we're saying is, you don't HAVE TO HAVE a reservation! No one should be restricted to a reservation. If you come in ten minutes late, no one is going to charge you extra. If you come in ten minutes early, we'll kick a paleface out of your seat. If some African, or Asian is in your way, we'll boot their asses out the door as well.
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Wednesday June 06 2018, @09:35PM
Maybe you should go read the declaration of independence. You don't understand where rights are derived from. It's all in there. Get someone who's intelligence you respect to help you through it and explain the finer points.
(Score: 2) by ewk on Wednesday June 06 2018, @12:25PM (21 children)
"My rights do not come from the government"
So... where do they come from?
If not from someone/something else, it only leaves your imagination...
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday June 06 2018, @03:10PM (8 children)
We hold these truths to be self evident . . . .
Self evident facts are not granted by a government.
(Score: 3, Informative) by ewk on Wednesday June 06 2018, @05:03PM (7 children)
"We"
Seems to me this 'we' is referring to the de facto government/leaders of that time.
It's not like YOU conjured up these ideas about truth and them being self evident. (Left aside the discussion whether they really are both)
However, that government (and by succession your current one) did/does manage your rights (either by limiting those rights directly or by indicating the limits the government can impose on those rights).
Seems to be your rights do come from your government after all, whether you like it or not.
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 2) by physicsmajor on Wednesday June 06 2018, @06:06PM (6 children)
I'm hoping you aren't just trolling. I'll bite.
The right to self defense is in fact a natural right. If you are assaulted, do you have to ask the .gov if you can defend yourself or, in the moment, do you just do so? That's what people mean by natural rights.
Now, as we see in the EU/Britain, the government can make legislation purportedly to limit such natural rights. But all such legislation only applies after the fact, and is completely ineffective in the moment when your attacker decided to ignore even more laws by attacking.
Similarly for free speech. All humans can say anything they want, at any time. Social constructs and common sense rein most of us in. But any North Korean could absolutely start shouting for Kim's ousting right now. That's a natural right. Their government wouldn't take kindly to this, and they may not be able to express their opinion long before getting arrested or shot, but they have the ability.
Natural rights do not arise from governments, full stop. In the above examples, governments feebly attempt to limit them, often with little functional success. I hope this is enlightening for you.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ewk on Wednesday June 06 2018, @09:00PM (5 children)
Not trolling here, just a total incomprehensibility of the weapon/gun-nuttery (and all the crap that comes along with it) that some people seem to be infected with.
You really should try this thing called civilisation... it works so much better than living by instinct or in an irrational fear that something might happen.
Then you will notice that the reasons to attack are few and far between. And so will be the actual attacks happening.
Or you could opt for something like the Somalian-solution, where no government feebly attempts to limit your so called natural rights.
Your choice... I know what is mine.
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 07 2018, @12:22AM (4 children)
And yet - London's murder rate is on the rise.
Funny, those people who lecture us on civilization, are in the process of abandoning said civilization. They have invited the barbarians in, and civilization just washes away.
(Score: 2) by ewk on Thursday June 07 2018, @07:58AM (1 child)
Nice whataboutism there. London is not the issue here.
"Handgun Purchaser Licensing Laws Linked to Fewer Firearm Homicides in Large, Urban Areas" is.
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 2, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 07 2018, @02:14PM
As stated repeatedly throughout this discussion, the title, TFS, and TFA are nothing but shit. The lefties have learned, "If you repeat a lie often enough, it eventually becomes truth." Some anti-gun nuts funded a study to support their position, so some "academic" took their money, and gave them what they wanted.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 08 2018, @01:03AM (1 child)
This is why I said, at the Close of the Civil War, that we should have just let Arkansas go. But the Union "invited" them back in. And so we have the uncivilized Runaway washing over us. American carnage and ignorance!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 09 2018, @10:42AM
Arkansas? He gets welcomed to IRC by cmn32480's bot with Dallas weather every time he joins.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Wednesday June 06 2018, @04:45PM (1 child)
I would suggest that you read the US Constitution. It doesn't grant rights to the people, it limits what the government can do in restricting the rights of the individual.
If people don't like the second amendment then they should push for a 28th amendment that simply says "The second amendment no longer applies." Problem solved.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by ewk on Wednesday June 06 2018, @04:55PM
Thanks for the suggestion, but that particular piece of paper (and the text written on it) has about the same value or interest to me as the half dozen sheets of toilet paper that I used today.
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday June 07 2018, @03:22AM (9 children)
That you need to ask tells me you do not understand what a right even is. Think on it a while. Reread the declaration and constitution. Hopefully it will come to you.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by ewk on Thursday June 07 2018, @08:24AM (8 children)
I did not ask what a right is, but where you think they/yours are coming from.
But, let's take a little more up-to-date point of view, instead of this stuff from yesteryears.
Like, the wiki page about 'Right': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_(disambiguation) [wikipedia.org]
"A right is a legal or moral entitlement or permission."
Drilling down on Entitlement and Permission, gives us:
- An entitlement is a provision made in accordance with a legal framework of a society.
- Permission, in philosophy, is the attribute of a person whose performance of a specific action, otherwise ethically wrong or dubious, would thereby involve no ethical fault. The term "permission" is more commonly used to refer to consent. Consent is the legal embodiment of the concept, in which approval is given to another party.
All in all it seems to me both Entitlement and Permissions (and therefore Rights) are granted to you by another party.
There are no 'self evident' Rights.
Hope this helps.
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 09 2018, @11:06AM (7 children)
Yes, which plainly tells me that you do not understand what a right even is. Let me splain. No, is too much. Let me sum up. You innately have every possible right to begin with. They don't even need acknowledging and defining except in the cases of desiring to protect or surrender a specific liberty.
Example: Do you have the right to pick your nose? Why? Where does this right come from?
See? Asking where they come from makes no sense whatsoever.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by ewk on Saturday June 09 2018, @12:18PM (6 children)
"They don't even need acknowledging and defining except in the cases of desiring to protect or surrender a specific liberty."
Except that each and every right actually does. So, 'your' exception mentioned above is (the way I see it) the rule.
If you don't want a right to be defined and acknowledged, it's not really a right now, is it?
Which brings me back to the main (and snipped away) part of my previous answer.
Re(re)ad it, (try to) understand it and realize that this means that each and every right (that you seem to think has been innately yours), in fact has been granted (by someone, during some time, for some period) to you.
Even picking your nose.
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 11 2018, @02:05AM (5 children)
That is so amazingly incorrect it's beyond belief. You do countless thing every single day that nobody has ever told you you have the right to do. You also avoid doing infinitely more things that nobody has ever told you you have the right to not do. Yet you'd get looked at like an idiot if you asked anyone where they got the right to wear blue on a Tuesday.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by ewk on Monday June 11 2018, @08:55AM (4 children)
If someone cares enough about your transgression of the right to wear only blue on Thursday, if will be brought to your attention.
Same applies to your other rights. Think it through.
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 11 2018, @03:27PM (3 children)
That's kind of my point. Most of your rights are never going to even be defined, yet they still exist.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by ewk on Monday June 11 2018, @05:01PM (2 children)
My point (and that of the Wikipedia-pages I referred to earlier in this thread) is kind of that those (for lack of a better word) concepts you refer to, are not rights.
Somewhat condensed and shortened (but do feel free to reread my original answer for all the nuance presented there) version of my original point:
A Right is an Entitlement or a Permission granted to you.
Seems we have a difference over what the proper definition of a Right is.
If you don't mind (and even if you do :-) ) I'll side with Wikipedia on this one.
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 11 2018, @06:50PM (1 child)
You'll cite people who agree with your flawed understanding of the nature of things. I understand. It's extremely difficult to get people to change their minds about anything even after you've explained the facts to them.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by ewk on Monday June 11 2018, @07:00PM
I completely agree with THAT statement.
But I still keep a glimmer of hope that eventually you'll come to your senses.
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 1) by DeVilla on Wednesday June 06 2018, @05:26AM
It doesn't. If we want to change that, I wished we follow the provided legal process. Instead we just ignore that statement as we ignore a lot of other statements in that document. We did manage to amend a few errors. We even have an example of how to re-amend bad amendments.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 06 2018, @05:38AM (4 children)
> Where exactly in that statement does it say that you can't own any of the above?
Take a look at:
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=38422 [upenn.edu]
To understand language usage at the time of the Founders, some researchers have digitized numerous contemporary documents, which can be searched for context to work out how certain words were used back then.
(Score: 4, Informative) by shortscreen on Wednesday June 06 2018, @06:44AM
That is interesting, and if they hadn't put the corpus behind a f73king google log-in I would have liked to look at it myself.
The argument made by that Baron fellow is laughable though. I wasn't aware that the meaning of "keep and bear arms" was ever in dispute. How would the revelation that part of that phrase was seen mostly in a military context have any implications for the rest of the amendment?
As the USA is not a monarchy, it may well be that the word "throne" is generally used to refer to a toilet. That would not prove that "Game of Thrones" is really a show about plumbing.
I wonder what a search for the words "well-regulated" would yield.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday June 06 2018, @10:06AM (2 children)
The petty game goes on. Just because you performed a ritual with a few computers and PhDs, doesn't mean that one gets to interpret the Constitution any way one feels like. Here, why is it supposedly significant that "bear arms" is frequently used in a "clearly military" context in unrelated documents (unrelated because they don't have legal bearing on the Constitution)? Why does it supposedly invalidate former Justice Scalia's write up [supremecourt.gov] of the majority opinion (DC v. Heller where an oppressive ban on firearm ownership was overturned by the US Supreme Court)? This is a profoundly dishonest argument which is invalidated by actually reading the Constitution itself.
Further, it's quite clear what the Second Amendment says on the subject. Sorry, English didn't drift that much. For example, it speaks of "the People". As Scalia noted above, every instance of a right granted to "the People" outside of the Second Amendment has been an individual right granted to all civilians (not merely a community right granted superfluously to all military who would have firearms anyway). Second, it's quite clear that the amendment is divided into two parts, the first being explicative (the "prefactory clause" in the language of the DC v. Heller ruling) and the second being the actual mandate (the "operative clause").
Sorry, the real solution here is get an amendment passed not to interpret the Constitution however one feels like. That is an abuse which can justify anything no matter how horrible.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Thursday June 07 2018, @12:26AM (1 child)
Kinda funny that the rest of your post consists of you doing exactly that yourself.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 07 2018, @03:29AM
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 06 2018, @09:20AM
I have the freedom to not be killed by terrorists. I do not have the freedom to not be killed by terrorists when that safety comes at the expense of other people's rights. This is why I do not accept mass surveillance, the TSA, the PAT RIOT Act, and other unjust measures that were created in the name of safety. I don't merely reject them because they fail to increase our level of safety, but mainly because they violate our freedoms. When your 'solution' involves violating people's rights, you've failed whether your solution increases safety or not.
It's the same with guns. A gun-nut who shoots you is surely violating your rights (unless it was self-defense), but that doesn't mean you get to have the government violate people's rights in the name of safety. Safety must not come at the expense of liberty.
For the record, outlawing any of the weapons you mentioned is unconstitutional, since the second amendment does not list any exceptions.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday June 06 2018, @01:58PM (2 children)
Whats a gun-nut, anyway? AFAIK as commonly defined they are essentially not involved in either crime or homicide.
Gun grabbing seems to require a lot of mental gymnastics involving a model of reality that seems to have nothing in common with reality and no useful predictive ability. The bifurcated political argument seems to reflect this in more than just gun grabbing. If its a bad idea or doesn't work in practice, you know the leftists will be shouting its holiness from the highest ground, every time... every time.
My guess is the people hated for being gun nuts have essentially no demographics in common with the gun-grabbers and essentially zero contribution to the local crime rate. They just happen to be mostly middle aged white men, that's their only crime.
The best SN automobile analogy I can come up with is given a large number of child car-bike fatal accidents, the solution is to ban video games because we hate video gamers and its a great idea because they ban depictions of nazi symbology in video games in Germany and you aren't a nazi, right, so you must support banning video games to save the children from death by bicycle accident? I mean child bike/car death rates are better in Germany so lets start banning video games to save the children.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 08 2018, @01:06AM (1 child)
VLM are a gun-nut. Any questions?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 09 2018, @11:09AM
These are gun-nuts [imgur.com]. Happy to be of service.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 06 2018, @05:23PM
if you read the founders letters you will see that they explicity say what they meant by "arms" in the 2nd amendment. "of current military and police use"(paraphrasing from memory). the whole point of the 2nd is that the people have the god given rigth to the same weapons as their servants. the "militia" statement was an explanation not a restriction. anyone who says differently is a dumbass. Anyone publicly advocating for infringement is guilty of sedition and should be shot on site.
(Score: 2) by mobydisk on Wednesday June 06 2018, @08:57PM
Don't forget nuclear weapons too!
We should have no trouble getting a 2/3rd majority on an amendment that says "The right to bear arms doesn't include rocket launchers and nuclear weapons." But instead of doing that, we ask the Supreme Court to do some supreme weasel-wording to get around the constitution.
Americans have forgotten how to make amendments. Up until 1971, we passed amendments quite often. During the 20th century, we passed them every 10 years or so. But we haven't passed one since 1971**. People have just forgotten entirely. Citizens complain that the courts are "legislating from the bench" but this is happening because citizens are bringing cases to the courts instead of proposing amendments like they should.
(** We passed one in 1992, by it was proposed in 1789 and just had some missing signatures.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 06 2018, @10:42PM
What is it with people who want new weapon laws being so completely ignorant of the laws we have?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Fluffeh on Wednesday June 06 2018, @04:01AM (14 children)
The middle east is FULL of guns. Given the logic of "more guns is safer" one would think that it is one of the the safest places about then no?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday June 06 2018, @05:02AM (12 children)
We don't have a "death to the infidels" ideology over here, so of course they're more violent. We also don't approve of fucking goats but I'm not sure if that has anything to do with it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Touché) by pe1rxq on Wednesday June 06 2018, @09:30AM (6 children)
You do seem to have quite a few people with a 'death to everyone in my school' ideology.......
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 06 2018, @09:40AM
"In-", negative prefix, ="not". "Fidel", from the Lat. fidelis, "faithful, honest". So what lying sack of camel-dung is claiming we do not have infidels? Persons not to be trusted? Even if they get elected precedent, or snag a contractors' gig in the NSC? Huh?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday June 06 2018, @01:47PM
Actually no, the numbers do not support.
Purely WRT political propaganda from the biased media IS a correct observation, 5 dead in the USA every month will yield 20 hours of news propaganda each time, vs 10 daily in the middle east is VERY carefully not mentioned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 06 2018, @05:26PM
actually it's a very small number. one pharma'd shooter every once in a while out of 300+ million people? tiny.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday June 07 2018, @03:27AM (2 children)
Yes, that's caused by raising them to depend on others to resolve their differences instead of engaging in a bit of fisticuffs and that being the end of it. If they can't do anything but sit there and swallow all their anger, of course it's going to build up until they snap. Pacifists caused these shootings.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by pe1rxq on Thursday June 07 2018, @01:36PM (1 child)
Being a pacifist does not mean that you do not solve your problems.
It just means that you don't solve them with violence.
Pacifism is just the opposite of shooting your fellow students.
The students apparently didn't learn how to solve their problems in a pacifist way, and (American) society as a whole failed by creating an environment where so many see non-pacifism as the only option left to them.
It is often old fashioned herd mentality that leads to both. (either feeling cast-out, or the actual casting out of by the other members of a herd)
On a personal note: Do you really think differences must be solved by physical means (fisticuffs or shooting)? If so why did you even bother writing your reply to me? You knew our differences would not be solved until either of us is bleeding.....
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 09 2018, @11:18AM
I think schoolyard scraps can and did resolve most adolescent disputes without any harm to speak of for a very long time. Then came the pacifists teaching their children that violence is never an alternative. Unfortunately passive dispute resolution is not as versatile as violence. It absolutely can not resolve any dispute that the other party is not interested in resolving. The child trying to remain passive has no choice whatsoever except to sit there and swallow the abuse forever if the abuser doesn't give a fuck what they have to say. Violence is quite capable of resolving such situations though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday June 06 2018, @03:21PM (1 child)
http://www.wwl.com/articles/louisiana-law-ban-sex-animals-wins-senate-vote-25-10 [wwl.com]
Louisiana law to ban sex with animals wins Senate vote 25 - 10
Note that 10 senators voted AGAINST.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday June 07 2018, @03:28AM
Are you saying politicians aren't goat fucking bastards? The 25 in favor were just embarrassed goat fuckers.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday June 06 2018, @03:35PM
We have football, though.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday June 06 2018, @11:40PM (1 child)
Sure we do. It's just a different set of people who are considered "infidels": If you ask around the US, it's not hard to find people who think the world would be a better place if every Muslim on the planet were killed, immediately. Indeed, you, The Mighty Buzzard, often seem to be leaning towards that viewpoint with your blatantly prejudiced description of Muslims.
Of course, Muslims aren't the only folks sometimes targeted by Americans who think genocide is fine and dandy: Illegal immigrants, black people, white people, Jews, GLBT folks, Trump supporters, etc. Once you get to the point where killing the people you don't like en masse becomes acceptable, the story ends only when everybody is dead.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday June 07 2018, @03:30AM
If you really think that, you're a fucking idiot and we can't have a rational conversation. I'll simply say that without major reform, Islam is simply, fundamentally incompatible with western civilization.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by PinkyGigglebrain on Wednesday June 06 2018, @04:50PM
The US has more guns per person than any country in the Middle East. There is less gun violence in the USA than in the Middle East. So more guns IS safer.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 4, Informative) by ilPapa on Wednesday June 06 2018, @04:07AM (9 children)
Actually, freedom is most definitely negotiable. There is not a single right guaranteed by our Constitution that does not have exceptions. Not a single one. And almost all of those exceptions were enumerated by the Founding Fathers themselves.
If you don't believe me, you name the individual right (and the part of the constitution that guarantees it) and I'll demonstrate to you the exceptions.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday June 06 2018, @05:03AM (4 children)
The constitution does not grant our rights, it recognizes their preexistence and prohibits the government from infringing on certain important ones.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ilPapa on Wednesday June 06 2018, @03:52PM (3 children)
I didn't say anything about the Constitution "granting" rights. I said it "guaranteed" those rights.
I hope you can read the Constitution more accurately than you read my comment.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 06 2018, @05:30PM
yes, and the federal gov is not the "guarantor" of our rights. it is simply charged with not infringing them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 07 2018, @03:53PM (1 child)
Uzzie is constantly triggered and angry which is why his reading comprehension sucks so bad. Too emotional, I blame his hormone treatments.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 09 2018, @11:21AM
Dude, if I get a whore, I'm not going to bother trying to make her moan. I'd want a discount if she did anyway.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 06 2018, @09:39AM (1 child)
Just make sure the exceptions weren't created out of thin air by our authoritarian courts. Many such exceptions don't actually exist in the Constitution, such as obscenity being seen as an exception to freedom of speech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 06 2018, @05:32PM
yes, and any law not even in the *spirit* of the constitution is unconstitutional, and therefore illegal. it was also clearly stated that it is every citizens duty to abolish and revolt against and such law. not dutifully whore oneself to whichever treasonous piece of shit weasels his/her way into office or badge.
(Score: 1) by Jtmach on Wednesday June 06 2018, @11:53AM (1 child)
Just out of curiosity, what have been the exemptions to the third right?
Nobody ever talks about that one, because I think people just think it would be ludicrous now-a-days
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday June 06 2018, @02:05PM
The separation of the military from civilian world is so sad.
I'm just saying if you're bored, go google up special forces training and the republic of pineland and all that. None of that training would be possible without extensive cooperation and written contractual permission from individual locals.
There's a lot of other countries where if the military wants to march, well, best case you can submit an invoice for damages but there's no saying "no". Including US behavior in foreign countries. But SF training for pineland is 100% voluntary unlike most countries in the world...
pineland of course is merely the largest scale example, on a much smaller scale this is a continuous issue. There's a constitutional reason my old army reserve unit camped at the nearest base, not the nearest public park or nearest unwilling farmers field, for example.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by number11 on Wednesday June 06 2018, @05:49AM (1 child)
Freedom isn't negotiable. So we need to kill those bastards who passed the "patriot" act to spy on us all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 06 2018, @05:36PM
fine by me.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday June 06 2018, @07:39AM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 06 2018, @09:42AM
I did, and google says you spelt it wrong.
(Score: 4, Informative) by bobthecimmerian on Wednesday June 06 2018, @07:05PM
1934: 500,000 Jews live in Germany.
1935: German citizenship, passports, and voting rights for Jews revoked. Jews cannot marry non-Jews or have health insurance. Jews cannot serve in the armed forces.
1936: Jews cannot have any professional job (doctor, lawyer, others).
1937: Jews cannot hold any government job.
1938: 200,000 Jews live in Germany. The first and only Nazi law is passed outlawing Jewish gun ownership.
Even if every Jew in the fucking country from age 5 and up had a rifle, what exactly do you think their chances were of 200,000 people against 79.5 million other Germans? The 6.8 million of the 7 million Jews that the Nazis butchered were from outside Germany: Austria, Poland, France, North Africa, and so forth. One of the most technologically sophisticated and well-organized armies in the history of the world up until that time invaded territories - crushed opposing armies with well-armed and trained troops, and then rounded up and executed the Jews. Private ownership of anything this side of nukes wasn't going to save them.
Pick another example for your gun rights.