Gunman opens fire at Oregon college in mass killing

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 9, 2015 10:13:18 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I've said many times that the US is too litigious. You're sue-happy. Sue, sue, sue. That'll teach people responsibility. Everybody will be safe.

But then, if you create rules about who is allowed to sue, aren't you bossing people around even more?   You have some regulation in place telling you whether or not you deserve to bring a case against someone? I would rather we stick with our current system - anyone can sue, but if it's a stupid case, it will most likely be kicked out or sent to arbitration. I prefer to error on the side of the victims.

I'm not arguing that new regulations should be put in place. This arc started with your comment, "This gets back to my point that people who know they are living with a mentally ill person who has violent tendencies ought to be partly liable for what happens if they keep an arsenal in the house."

"Ought to be" here implies to me that this isn't something the courts presently hold people liable for. I don't know either way. What I do know is that if I were an American, I wouldn't want precedents on the books ruling in favour of the plaintiffs in such cases, nor would I want lawyers, judges, or lawmakers to make it easier to win such suits. Not because I disagree that negligence shouldn't be punished--because I don't--but because this opens up a much larger Pandora's box, and I sincerely believe it will lead to more harm than good.

Oct 9, 2015 10:13:18 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Yes it would be much more exciting to drive down our freeways with a bunch of high, drunk, nearly blind, frail or sick truck drivers behind the wheels of giant 18 wheelers.

We could make it like a giant game of frogger - who can dodge the careening trucks while staying on the road? Extra points if you avoid hitting the school bus in your desperate attempt to not get squashed.

Society managed just fine without drug testing for truckers for well over three generations.

So why is there drug testing now? Because if you're an employer liable for your drivers' drinking, you put in testing to cover your butt. You put in testing, you make it clear to them that you don't trust them to behave responsibly. You let employees know you have no faith or trust in them, every experiment on human nature ever conducted says they're far more likely to cheat if they think they can get away with it.

In other words, in your noble attempts to make the world a better place through litigation, you've created paranoid employers, cheating employees with no professional ethics, a court system already more backlogged and sclerotic than it was before, and on a long enough timeframe, just as many drunk or drugged-out truckers. Bravo.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

markmanson.net/school-shootings

It's long, but that won't bother people that care about a thorough think-piece with a completely different perspective on school shootings.  Here are some highlights.

But this “witch hunt” we go through every time a school shooting happens is a total ruse. Elliot Rodger didn’t become a killer because he was a misogynist; he became a misogynist because he was a killer. Just like Eric Harris didn’t become a killer because he loved violent video games; he loved violent video games because he was a killer. Just like Adam Lanza didn’t become a killer because he loved guns; he loved guns because he was a killer.

For a country that is so single-mindedly obsessed with terrorism, it’s jaw-dropping that almost nobody recognizes that school shooters use the exact same strategies to disseminate fear and their twisted agendas throughout society. Terrorists use violence and mass media coverage to promote political or religious beliefs; school shooters use violence and mass media coverage to promote their personal grievances and glorification.

In spite of the author's best efforts, the political liberalism does inevitably leak through- and of course virtually nothing presented either equates to "empathy", nor would it do anything to "fix" gun violence.

Here’s what doesn’t get the headlines: Empathy. Listening to those around you. Even if you don’t like them very much. We have come to live in a culture where it’s taboo or unacceptable to simply check in with people emotionally and offer some empathy and understanding. I’m not saying this would magically fix all gun violence. I’m just saying that all of these things — the lack of gun laws, the lack of health care, the inability to have basic conversations with friends and neighbors about what’s going on with them, these are all extensions of a callous and self-absorbed culture that lacks any real empathy.

I could sum the author's point up better than the author does:  We can do a better job than we are currently doing on mass shootings because we all have the script.  We know who they are, we know what they're planning, and how they plan it, and these people are all hiding in plain sight. The real challenge for us is to disrupt them.  

If the author would refrain from doing what they claim to lament- and scrap the politics and the mushy answer about "empathy"- and focus on the real answers- the author might have come up with something more along the lines of what Ben Carson has been saying this week- because we have examples of how that works, whereas sheltering in place until we finally surrender to the gun-wielding psychopath does not work.  However, the author is right about one thing: these master manipulators ALWAYS factor a predictable media response into their plans- the media are on-script, every time.  I would like to see the media voluntarily refrain from playing the role, we might all be better off.

[fishy999]

Well let's get the truth out there on these mass shootings- I am damn sick of this 'gun free zones' argument that blames the site of the recent shooting on gun laws- it has not and ever been proven that even one of these sick people picked their targets based on gun laws.

They shoot up their workplace, their schools, etc.  That's the usual MO.

Only one way to fix it- and we will never do it- is to do what other countries have done- not ban guns, but ban all handguns, assault weapons, high capacity magazines, etc. where you can have a bolt action rifle or shotgun, and none of the bullshit the NRA backed manufactureres are selling..  Until then we will talk about the shooting next week.

[Shooby]

We need tougher murder laws!!!

[Shooby]

Well, if we just had tougher murder laws, then we wouldn't even have to worry about guns because if people KNOW they aren't supposed to murder someone, then they are going to buy things to murder people with.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 10, 2015 0:39:17 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Well let's get the truth out there on these mass shootings- I am damn sick of this 'gun free zones' argument that blames the site of the recent shooting on gun laws- it has not and ever been proven that even one of these sick people picked their targets based on gun laws.

I think the suggestion is more that "gun-free zones" mean nothing to the lawless.

Chicago is often cited as an example. The city has the strictest gun control laws in the country, and one of the (if not the) highest gun homicide rates in the country.

There's also the issue of why certain institutions (such as colleges) choose to be gun-free zones. Personally I think they do it because because guns are a symbol of violence and because guns make people uncomfortable. These aren't terribly popular answers, however, and most of these institutions will go on the record saying fewer guns on campus makes students safer. At best, this argument isn't proven. At worst, banning guns on campuses accomplishes the opposite by disarming anybody who might otherwise take down a mass shooter.

That's the controversy, at any rate.

[Deleted]

Most people who do these things are quite willing to not walk away fom the incident... So possible punishment isn't really a deterant. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 10, 2015 7:44:43 GMT -5 oped said:

Most people who do these things are quite willing to not walk away fom the incident... So possible punishment isn't really a deterant. 

I think Shooby is being sarcastic.

[Deleted]

People accept auto deaths and vending machine deaths and hospitial infection deaths and just about any other kind of death you can name.  The amount of violent gun deaths is going down, but people cannot accept gun deaths.  I do not believe the issue is death.  I think the issue is irrational hate and fear of guns.

[Shooby]

Yes, but if we had tougher murder laws then the gun thing would take care of itself. That would end all murders so guns are no longer an issue.

[Deleted]

I have lots of guns. I do not fear them. I fear armed people who are mentally ill, vindictive, angry, etc. 

We don't accept auto deaths. We have made the mechanics of the autos safer and safer over the years... We have increased driver education, put greater regulations on initial licensing, require medical exams, require annual registrations and inspections, and overall auto deaths have decreased significantly over time. 

Lets do the same with guns and see what happens.

[Deleted]

Oct 10, 2015 8:07:26 GMT -5 oped said:

I have lots of guns. I do not fear them. I fear armed people who are mentally ill, vindictive, angry, etc. 

We don't accept auto deaths. We have made the mechanics of the autos safer and safer over the years... We have increased driver education, put greater regulations on initial licensing, require medical exams, require annual registrations and inspections, and overall auto deaths have decreased significantly over time. 

Lets do the same with guns and see what happens.

Why do you fear mentally ill people?  Do you think they are more dangerous?  If so, could you provide some study that confirms that?  The mentally ill should not be demonized.  It is just an ugly campaign by people who are too lazy to to argue guns are a human right.  Self protection is a human right.

Tens of thousands die from auto deaths every year. We can do more to stop them.  We regulate guns now.  You want to regulate more even though gun deaths are going down, then why not do more for auto deaths?  How many people die unnecessarily from infections at hospitals that  never should happen yet there is no outcry about that and no downside to fixing it, other then inconvenience and cost. 

We kill innocent children in the middle east and empower thugs over there to rape and behead based on religion.   If liberals want to care about gun violence, stop what is being done in our name by our proxies in savage countries. 

I do not know your motives but in general I do not think the motivation for removing guns is preventing gun deaths. Gun deaths are going down.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 10, 2015 7:58:23 GMT -5 @hickle said:

People accept auto deaths and vending machine deaths and hospitial infection deaths and just about any other kind of death you can name.  The amount of violent gun deaths is going down, but people cannot accept gun deaths.  I do not believe the issue is death.  I think the issue is irrational hate and fear of guns.

the difference between your list of things that cause death and guns is that MOST gun deaths are entirely unnecessary.

we don't accept deaths that are NOT necessary.  that is kind of a fundamental principle, imo.  it is not irrational in any sense.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 10, 2015 8:20:03 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Oct 10, 2015 8:07:26 GMT -5 oped said:

I have lots of guns. I do not fear them. I fear armed people who are mentally ill, vindictive, angry, etc. 

We don't accept auto deaths. We have made the mechanics of the autos safer and safer over the years... We have increased driver education, put greater regulations on initial licensing, require medical exams, require annual registrations and inspections, and overall auto deaths have decreased significantly over time. 

Lets do the same with guns and see what happens.

Why do you fear mentally ill people?  Do you think they are more dangerous?  If so, could you provide some study that confirms that?  The mentally ill should not be demonized.  It is just an ugly campaign by people who are too lazy to to argue guns are a human right.  Self protection is a human right.

Tens of thousands die from auto deaths every year. We can do more to stop them.  We regulate guns now.  You want to regulate more even though gun deaths are going down, then why not do more for auto deaths?  How many people die unnecessarily from infections at hospitals that  never should happen yet there is no outcry about that and no downside to fixing it, other then inconvenience and cost. 

We kill innocent children in the middle east and empower thugs over there to rape and behead based on religion.   If liberals want to care about gun violence, stop what is being done in our name by our proxies in savage countries. 

I do not know your motives but in general I do not think the motivation for removing guns is preventing gun deaths. Gun deaths are going down.

all of your questions are answered in oped's response, save one.

liberals care more about the US than Saudi Arabia, and that is just as it should be.

[tallguy]

Oct 10, 2015 7:41:05 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 10, 2015 0:39:17 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Well let's get the truth out there on these mass shootings- I am damn sick of this 'gun free zones' argument that blames the site of the recent shooting on gun laws- it has not and ever been proven that even one of these sick people picked their targets based on gun laws.

I think the suggestion is more that "gun-free zones" mean nothing to the lawless.

Chicago is often cited as an example. The city has the strictest gun control laws in the country, and one of the (if not the) highest gun homicide rates in the country.

There's also the issue of why certain institutions (such as colleges) choose to be gun-free zones. Personally I think they do it because because guns are a symbol of violence and because guns make people uncomfortable. These aren't terribly popular answers, however, and most of these institutions will go on the record saying fewer guns on campus makes students safer. At best, this argument isn't proven. At worst, banning guns on campuses accomplishes the opposite by disarming anybody who might otherwise take down a mass shooter.

That's the controversy, at any rate.

And you (as well as everyone else who cites this example) know just as well as I do that the guns being used in those homicides are not being bought in Chicago.  The areas just outside the city and across the state line have laws which are much less stringent.  The guns are being bought there and then brought into Chicago.  Ignoring that is disingenuous. 

Chicago has issues which perhaps lend themselves to increased violence, but it is the ease of acquiring guns outside of Chicago which creates the reality of that violence.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 10, 2015 13:01:46 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Oct 10, 2015 7:41:05 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I think the suggestion is more that "gun-free zones" mean nothing to the lawless.

Chicago is often cited as an example. The city has the strictest gun control laws in the country, and one of the (if not the) highest gun homicide rates in the country.

There's also the issue of why certain institutions (such as colleges) choose to be gun-free zones. Personally I think they do it because because guns are a symbol of violence and because guns make people uncomfortable. These aren't terribly popular answers, however, and most of these institutions will go on the record saying fewer guns on campus makes students safer. At best, this argument isn't proven. At worst, banning guns on campuses accomplishes the opposite by disarming anybody who might otherwise take down a mass shooter.

That's the controversy, at any rate.

And you (as well as everyone else who cites this example) know just as well as I do that the guns being used in those homicides are not being bought in Chicago.  The areas just outside the city and across the state line have laws which are much less stringent.  The guns are being bought there and then brought into Chicago.  Ignoring that is disingenuous. 

Chicago has issues which perhaps lend themselves to increased violence, but it is the ease of acquiring guns outside of Chicago which creates the reality of that violence.

It's a reasonable argument in theory, but there's little doubt in my mind it would fail for the same reason that the "war on drugs" has failed and why prohibition failed. Where there's a will to obtain, there's a way. Moreover, Chicago's laws obviously aren't preventing people from keeping or using their firearms.

Even if you shut down America's firearm manufacturers and made it illegal to manufacture firearms, i.e. the true "nuclear option", I doubt gun homicides would drop much.

Think of it this way: the manufacture, possession, and use of methamphetamines is illegal throughout the US and Canada. Even so, if you wanted to get your hands on some meth, tell me with a straight face you couldn't have some in the palm of your hand before the end of next week. Now add in the fact that firearm manufacture isn't illegal, add in that "moderate" gun control measures such as background checks wouldn't categorically outlaw possession of firearms, and tell me this wouldn't be an exercise in futility.

[tallguy]

Oct 10, 2015 14:58:15 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 10, 2015 13:01:46 GMT -5 tallguy said:

And you (as well as everyone else who cites this example) know just as well as I do that the guns being used in those homicides are not being bought in Chicago.  The areas just outside the city and across the state line have laws which are much less stringent.  The guns are being bought there and then brought into Chicago.  Ignoring that is disingenuous. 

Chicago has issues which perhaps lend themselves to increased violence, but it is the ease of acquiring guns outside of Chicago which creates the reality of that violence.

It's a reasonable argument in theory, but there's little doubt in my mind it would fail for the same reason that the "war on drugs" has failed and why prohibition failed. Where there's a will to obtain, there's a way. Moreover, Chicago's laws obviously aren't preventing people from keeping or using their firearms.

Even if you shut down America's firearm manufacturers and made it illegal to manufacture firearms, i.e. the true "nuclear option", I doubt gun homicides would drop much.

Think of it this way: the manufacture, possession, and use of methamphetamines is illegal throughout the US and Canada. Even so, if you wanted to get your hands on some meth, tell me with a straight face you couldn't have some in the palm of your hand before the end of next week. Now add in the fact that firearm manufacture isn't illegal, add in that "moderate" gun control measures such as background checks wouldn't categorically outlaw possession of firearms, and tell me this wouldn't be an exercise in futility.

Of course it's not a panacea, and I don't think anyone anywhere has ever suggested otherwise.  But it would have an effect.  The magnitude of that effect is certainly arguable, but to suggest it would have none is silly.

[Deleted]

Legalizing drugs and regulating them would be much more effective than criminalizing them. Very true. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 10, 2015 15:09:18 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Oct 10, 2015 14:58:15 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

It's a reasonable argument in theory, but there's little doubt in my mind it would fail for the same reason that the "war on drugs" has failed and why prohibition failed. Where there's a will to obtain, there's a way. Moreover, Chicago's laws obviously aren't preventing people from keeping or using their firearms.

Even if you shut down America's firearm manufacturers and made it illegal to manufacture firearms, i.e. the true "nuclear option", I doubt gun homicides would drop much.

Think of it this way: the manufacture, possession, and use of methamphetamines is illegal throughout the US and Canada. Even so, if you wanted to get your hands on some meth, tell me with a straight face you couldn't have some in the palm of your hand before the end of next week. Now add in the fact that firearm manufacture isn't illegal, add in that "moderate" gun control measures such as background checks wouldn't categorically outlaw possession of firearms, and tell me this wouldn't be an exercise in futility.

Of course it's not a panacea, and I don't think anyone anywhere has ever suggested otherwise.  But it would have an effect.  The magnitude of that effect is certainly arguable, but to suggest it would have none is silly.

Any laws also have the effect of prohibiting law-abiding firearms owners from freely owning and using their weapons, or at the very least making life harder for them. The stricter the laws, the greater the effect. Since you're a supposedly free nation and firearms are a beloved hobby by no small part of the populace, these side effects are not to be lightly discounted.

For gun control measures as strict as banning handguns or prohibiting anyone with a diagnosis of mental illness from owning a gun, the reduction in gun homicides would have to be substantial to justify the sacrifice. "Some impact, probably" doesn't cut it by half.

[tallguy]

Owning a gun SHOULD require more of an effort and a commitment than merely saying, "I'll take that one."

I don't recall the numbers, but statistically it is much more likely that a gun will be used to kill a family member than an intruder.  It is twice as likely to be used in a suicide as a homicide.  I think I recall that it is more likely in certain situations to be used against the owner than BY the owner.  It is a deadly weapon.  Some may argue that it is used for other things such as target shooting, but that is its essence.  To fire a projectile with enough force to kill.  As such, it places a tremendous responsibility on the owner.  

An owner needs to be responsible, both in the use and the storage of the gun.  And he/she should be held accountable for the failure to do so.  Registration of guns (particularly handguns) and background checks are not onerous nor are they prohibited by the Second Amendment.  And negligence in gun use or storage should result in the loss of ownership privileges.  For whatever reason, gun ownership is celebrated in this country, and I really do not care either way whether someone owns guns.  I begin to care when those guns are used.  I become angry when they are misused.

If you want responsible citizens to be allowed to own guns, fine.  But there is a continuing burden to prove they are in fact responsible gun owners.  And that burden continues every single day that they own a gun. 

[Deleted]

Oct 10, 2015 19:44:19 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Owning a gun SHOULD require more of an effort and a commitment than merely saying, "I'll take that one."

I don't recall the numbers, but statistically it is much more likely that a gun will be used to kill a family member than an intruder.  It is twice as likely to be used in a suicide as a homicide.  I think I recall that it is more likely in certain situations to be used against the owner than BY the owner.  It is a deadly weapon.  Some may argue that it is used for other things such as target shooting, but that is its essence.  To fire a projectile with enough force to kill.  As such, it places a tremendous responsibility on the owner.  

An owner needs to be responsible, both in the use and the storage of the gun.  And he/she should be held accountable for the failure to do so.  Registration of guns (particularly handguns) and background checks are not onerous nor are they prohibited by the Second Amendment.  And negligence in gun use or storage should result in the loss of ownership privileges.  For whatever reason, gun ownership is celebrated in this country, and I really do not care either way whether someone owns guns.  I begin to care when those guns are used.  I become angry when they are misused.

If you want responsible citizens to be allowed to own guns, fine.  But there is a continuing burden to prove they are in fact responsible gun owners.  And that burden continues every single day that they own a gun. 

If you put a guy on a list as owning a gun he is on a list for when the government wants to come and take them.  They are on that list for when the government wants to change rules and not grandfather in those rules.  I read about Pol Pot's soldiers bashing in the heads of babies during that war.  I think most people are the same at the core, we all can do good, we all can do bad.  There is nothing about the people here that inherently protects them from bad government.  Guns keep governments honest.

[tallguy]

If you put a guy on a list as owning a gun he is on a list for when the government wants to come and take them.

I don't listen to arguments from the fringe, and would never be persuaded by them.  I am perfectly comfortable putting the odds of that happening at virtually zero.  You can listen to whoever you want.  Doesn't make it any more likely.

[Deleted]

Oct 10, 2015 20:01:47 GMT -5 tallguy said:

If you put a guy on a list as owning a gun he is on a list for when the government wants to come and take them.

I don't listen to arguments from the fringe, and would never be persuaded by them.  I am perfectly comfortable putting the odds of that happening at virtually zero.  You can listen to whoever you want.  Doesn't make it any more likely.

I go to a website where the blogger said that he left New York, I think.  They changed the laws and made certain types of guns outlawed.  He had moved to Montana, and did not respond to the law.  New York officials expected him to conform to the new laws. He had mail forwarded to him or something. He wasnt allowed that gun in that state anymore and the state meant to enforce that.

I could be wrong that it was New York.  It was one of those north eastern states that banned some stuff after Sandy Hook.

It is not an argument from the fringe.  It is recent history.  Does that story not make sense?  It does to me.

[fishy999]

About those gun laws- and everyone will agree correlation does not equate to causation- but this is a compelling chart:




www.nationaljournal.com/s/53345/states-with-most-gun-laws-see-fewest-gun-related-deaths

[fishy999]

All states and also compelling:

SPOILER: Click to show

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 10, 2015 20:42:38 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

About those gun laws- and everyone will agree correlation does not equate to causation- but this is a compelling chart:

...

It's not really compelling at all. States with many guns and many gun lovers are going to have much greater resistance to putting in gun control laws. These states are also going to have more accidental discharges, more suicides, and more gun homicides purely as a result of firearms being more commonplace in daily life. One can very reasonably argue that the laws have no causative effect at all.

Harder to rebut is that if the government were to put in an effective policy to reduce the general prevalence of guns (i.e. fewer average guns per household), the overall rate of discharges, suicides, and homicides would drop. You can't have gun deaths without guns. Having said this, the citizens of these states have made it perfectly clear they care about their freedoms more than they care about the < 200-per-million discharges, suicides, and homicides. They want the federal government to butt out.

The US federal government has been ignoring states' wishes and pushing heavy-handed policies throughout Pres. Obama's term. If it continues for long, you're going to see open revolt and secessionist movements that aren't just in the fringes. I don't blame them. Washington has no business pushing a lot of what it's been pushing. The latest buzz on the newswires is that Pres. Obama is going to try to force through national gun control measures by Executive Order shortly, circumventing the legislative branches entirely. I don't care how well-meaning it is, you (Americans) ought to consider that damn near treasonable.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 10, 2015 19:44:19 GMT -5 tallguy said:

If you want responsible citizens to be allowed to own guns, fine.  But there is a continuing burden to prove they are in fact responsible gun owners.  And that burden continues every single day that they own a gun. 

That's a very reasonable argument from principle. Even so, i) it's an argument from principle, ii) it has nothing to do with the reality of whether gun control laws will meaningfully reduce homicides, and iii) as I just finished arguing, the most gun-happy states are plainly aware of the risks associated with greater liberty (as it pertains to firearms) and they're just as plainly willing to accept them.

The states that want gun control have gun control. They enacted it through their own legislatures. No self-respecting liberal, which you purport to be, should back a push by the federal government to infringe on the liberties of states that clearly don't want those liberties infringed. This is the difference between classical liberalism and neoliberalism. Neoliberalism ignores the principles of classical liberalism when so moved.

Toke up in Colorado? "Let the state decide."

Assisted suicide in California? "Let the state decide."

No waiting period for firearms in Texas? "Oop. No. Can't allow that. Because mass shootings."

Well screw that.

[billisonboard]

Oct 11, 2015 7:12:26 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

...

Toke up in Colorado? "Let the state decide."

Assisted suicide in California? "Let the state decide."

No waiting period for firearms in Texas? "Oop. No. Can't allow that. Because mass shootings."

Well screw that.

For me it is:

Toke up? "Let the individual decide to inhale."

Assisted suicide? "Let the individual decide to kill themselves."

Until murder victims can self select, ...

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 11, 2015 7:41:25 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oct 11, 2015 7:12:26 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

...

Toke up in Colorado? "Let the state decide."

Assisted suicide in California? "Let the state decide."

No waiting period for firearms in Texas? "Oop. No. Can't allow that. Because mass shootings."

Well screw that.

For me it is:

Toke up? "Let the individual decide to inhale."

Assisted suicide? "Let the individual decide to kill themselves."

Until murder victims can self select, ...

It doesn't work that way.

There's no reason that I, the typical law-abiding firearm owner, should have to wait, go through a background check, have limits on my firearm capacity, etc.  The gun control measures are put in place with the aim of preventing and punishing abuse.

Marijuana and assisted suicide can be abused and cause harm to others as well. This is one of the reasons they were outlawed in the first place. In this case, your argument is that just because something can be abused doesn't mean we should prohibit it for everybody. The same argument applies to gun control. Especially since you lack a defensible basis to assert that the gun control measures would meaningfully reduce homicides.

If you want an even better example: alcohol. Supposing the government could effectively reduce consumption of alcohol, the savings to human life would dwarf that of the aforementioned gun control policies by at least two orders of magnitude. But I'm guessing that even if you knew that government could effectively force America to dry up (maybe with a one-bottle-of-booze-per-month-per-family rule), you wouldn't support it. Even with the huge number of innocent lives saved (and again we're talking a hundredfold greater impact), the imposition is too great.

Err on the side of liberty, my friend. You're not doing that here. You're sacrificing a little freedom for a little security, pushing laws on states that clearly reject them in spite of the risks, and it's not a liberal thing to do.

[billisonboard]

Oct 11, 2015 9:50:05 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 11, 2015 7:41:25 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

For me it is:

Toke up? "Let the individual decide to inhale."

Assisted suicide? "Let the individual decide to kill themselves."

Until murder victims can self select, ...

It doesn't work that way.

There's no reason that I, the typical law-abiding firearm owner, should have to wait, go through a background check, have limits on my firearm capacity, etc.  The gun control measures are put in place with the aim of preventing and punishing abuse.

Marijuana and assisted suicide can be abused and cause harm to others as well. This is one of the reasons they were outlawed in the first place. In this case, your argument is that just because something can be abused doesn't mean we should prohibit it for everybody. The same argument applies to gun control. Especially since you lack a defensible basis to assert that the gun control measures would meaningfully reduce homicides.

If you want an even better example: alcohol. Supposing the government could effectively reduce consumption of alcohol, the savings to human life would dwarf that of the aforementioned gun control policies by at least two orders of magnitude. But I'm guessing that even if you knew that government could effectively force America to dry up (maybe with a one-bottle-of-booze-per-month-per-family rule), you wouldn't support it. Even with the huge number of innocent lives saved (and again we're talking a hundredfold greater impact), the imposition is too great.

Err on the side of liberty, my friend. You're not doing that here. You're sacrificing a little freedom for a little security, pushing laws on states that clearly reject them in spite of the risks, and it's not a liberal thing to do.

Owning shit don't mean much to me. I got me a gun doesn't equal liberty in my mind.