America's Gun Violence

CM189191 said:

car != gun

Go Beavers said:

tbergs said:

CM189191 said:

car != gun

No, no, no. One requires that you have a license to operate it, renew it, etc. and it can be taken away if you are unfit . Hmm, I wonder which one?

One also can only be used in very specific areas, with a long list of rules to follow and the police can and will monitor your use of it.  You also have to register every one you own and pay insurance on it. 

dudeman said:

One is a constitutionally protected right, the other is a privilege. 

PJ_Soul said:

dudeman said:

One is a constitutionally protected right, the other is a privilege. 

Ah yes, the ridiculous 2nd amendment. Too bad the founding fathers didn't have a crystal ball when they wrote that one. I really wish someone would address the fact that it desperately needs to be updated.

rgambs said:

PJ_Soul said:

dudeman said:

One is a constitutionally protected right, the other is a privilege. 

Ah yes, the ridiculous 2nd amendment. Too bad the founding fathers didn't have a crystal ball when they wrote that one. I really wish someone would address the fact that it desperately needs to be updated.

What needs to be updated is societies definition of what constitutes a right.
The Constitution also grants the right to own people.
Frankly, I don't give a shit what those dodgy old fucks wrote about rights.
Real human rights can't be granted by governments or taken away either.
There is no such thing.
If such a thing as rights existed they couldn't be denied or taken away.  What the fuck good is a right that can be taken away?  It's an asinine concept.
We don't even have a right to air in our lungs, get over it.
We certainly don't have a right to own guns without registration or tracking, that's just ludicrous.

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

PJ_Soul said:

dudeman said:

One is a constitutionally protected right, the other is a privilege. 

Ah yes, the ridiculous 2nd amendment. Too bad the founding fathers didn't have a crystal ball when they wrote that one. I really wish someone would address the fact that it desperately needs to be updated.

What needs to be updated is societies definition of what constitutes a right.
The Constitution also grants the right to own people.
Frankly, I don't give a shit what those dodgy old fucks wrote about rights.
Real human rights can't be granted by governments or taken away either.
There is no such thing.
If such a thing as rights existed they couldn't be denied or taken away.  What the fuck good is a right that can be taken away?  It's an asinine concept.
We don't even have a right to air in our lungs, get over it.
We certainly don't have a right to own guns without registration or tracking, that's just ludicrous.

Where in the constitution does it say you can own people?

rgambs said:

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

PJ_Soul said:

dudeman said:

One is a constitutionally protected right, the other is a privilege. 

Ah yes, the ridiculous 2nd amendment. Too bad the founding fathers didn't have a crystal ball when they wrote that one. I really wish someone would address the fact that it desperately needs to be updated.

What needs to be updated is societies definition of what constitutes a right.
The Constitution also grants the right to own people.
Frankly, I don't give a shit what those dodgy old fucks wrote about rights.
Real human rights can't be granted by governments or taken away either.
There is no such thing.
If such a thing as rights existed they couldn't be denied or taken away.  What the fuck good is a right that can be taken away?  It's an asinine concept.
We don't even have a right to air in our lungs, get over it.
We certainly don't have a right to own guns without registration or tracking, that's just ludicrous.

Where in the constitution does it say you can own people?

The Enumeration Clause
Article 1 Section 9 wherein Congress is forbidden from prohibiting the importation of slaves
The Fugitive Slave Clause

oftenreading said:

Shall we also mention the Amendments, by which the document has been, well, amended, many times? That suggests that it isn't correctly viewed as perfect and immutable. 

PS Last amended in 1992. Changes have occurred throughout the existence of the document. 

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Was it the gun or the perp that was illegal in the Aurora movie theater massacre? Was it the gun or the perps that were illegal at Columbine? Santa Barbara? Sandy Hook? How about the guy in the Florida movie theater who shot the guy for yaking on his cell phone during the previews? Was it him or his gun that was illegal? Can you guess what they all had in common? This one doesn't quite fit but was it the perp or his guns at Virginia Tech that was illegal? How about the church in Charleston, SC? Was it the perp or his guns that was illegal? He fits though, don't he? Dallas? Anyone want to tell me what was illegal in Dallas? The gun or the perp?

Finding a handful of examples doesn't disprove that many acts are from illegally obtained guns or people who legally aren't allowed to be in possession of a gun.
But my other point was mental illness as well. Many, even most of your list would be considered mentally ill on your list, even if they weren't diagnosed before the fact.
i don't know if I haven't been clear or what. I'm not against gun control at all. But gun control should focus on the problem. Prevent people from getting guns who shouldn't have them. Be more strict against those who break gun laws (possession of stolen gun, illegal possession of guns, etc).

Actually, most of those examples given didn't have any, or not significant enough mental illness that it would be considered a major factor in the offences. What they had was anger, resentment, and a fascination with guns and gun violence. Society's and media's tendency to say that any incidence of violence must be due to mental illness muddies the waters here. The vast majority of violence is not due to mental illness, though a big chunk is related to substance abuse. 

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Was it the gun or the perp that was illegal in the Aurora movie theater massacre? Was it the gun or the perps that were illegal at Columbine? Santa Barbara? Sandy Hook? How about the guy in the Florida movie theater who shot the guy for yaking on his cell phone during the previews? Was it him or his gun that was illegal? Can you guess what they all had in common? This one doesn't quite fit but was it the perp or his guns at Virginia Tech that was illegal? How about the church in Charleston, SC? Was it the perp or his guns that was illegal? He fits though, don't he? Dallas? Anyone want to tell me what was illegal in Dallas? The gun or the perp?

Finding a handful of examples doesn't disprove that many acts are from illegally obtained guns or people who legally aren't allowed to be in possession of a gun.
But my other point was mental illness as well. Many, even most of your list would be considered mentally ill on your list, even if they weren't diagnosed before the fact.
i don't know if I haven't been clear or what. I'm not against gun control at all. But gun control should focus on the problem. Prevent people from getting guns who shouldn't have them. Be more strict against those who break gun laws (possession of stolen gun, illegal possession of guns, etc).

Actually, most of those examples given didn't have any, or not significant enough mental illness that it would be considered a major factor in the offences. What they had was anger, resentment, and a fascination with guns and gun violence. Society's and media's tendency to say that any incidence of violence must be due to mental illness muddies the waters here. The vast majority of violence is not due to mental illness, though a big chunk is related to substance abuse. 

Maybe I was wrong on that, but I thought it was pretty accepted that Aurora, Columbine, Sandy Hook (which are one of the biggest 3 on the list) are believed to have a mental illness or warning signs that were missed? Sort of what you said, the media's tendency was to imply anyone who commits a mass shooting and then kills themselves likely has some sort of mental illness, and that was pretty much the accepted stance at the time. Family, friends, professionals at school look at the warning signs that were missed.
And my original point that this was a response to was that illegal activity make up a large portion of gun violence. Obviously not all are, but statistically criminal activity is a very large factor in gun violence.

Responsible gun owners until they become criminals. Gotcha.