danivon wrote:

Actually, it was enough to start a fistfight. It only escalated to a fight in which nine people died because of the number of participants who were carrying guns.

As I understand it, the use of the "Texas" badge was one of the underlying grievances between the two gangs involved. What triggered the fight is not clear, it was described as perhaps about parking, or someone's foot being run over, or a bathroom incident.

Guns meant that a lot of people were killed or injured in a short space of time, and that the cops who were there were involved and also fired (which seems to have helped end it, perhaps). Had it been a fistfight or using knives, it would likely have been slower and less deadly.

Two problems:

1. You don't know. It might have been worse without guns. The gunfire gets 911 called faster than a brawl. Furthermore, it tends to send people scurrying for cover, which a brawl would not do.

2. Again, there is no way, none, to stop criminals from getting guns. The Bandidos run all kinds of narcotics. They have money. They will get guns no matter how many laws you pass. You can theorize all you want, but the guns don't respond to theory. They go where the money is. Your theory of banning guns is just that: a fantasy.

Doctor Fate wrote:Two problems:

1. You don't know. It might have been worse without guns. The gunfire gets 911 called faster than a brawl. Furthermore, it tends to send people scurrying for cover, which a brawl would not do.

No one needed to call 911. The police were monitoring the meet and were shot at.

People don't need as much cover in a brawl, and bullets travel a lot further and faster than fists or knives.

2. Again, there is no way, none, to stop criminals from getting guns. The Bandidos run all kinds of narcotics. They have money. They will get guns no matter how many laws you pass. You can theorize all you want, but the guns don't respond to theory. They go where the money is. Your theory of banning guns is just that: a fantasy.

Suddenly you don't agree with market theory? And what is more, I am not arguing for a complete ban on guns. More controls and enforcement on illegal guns would tend to increase the costs, financial and risk-based, for criminals to hold them. Will it magically eliminate criminality with guns overnight? No. But neither Sass nor myself are claiming it would.

So, well done at shooting down straw men with slogans and simple reasoning. Now can we discuss this calmly and rationally?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Two problems:

1. You don't know. It might have been worse without guns. The gunfire gets 911 called faster than a brawl. Furthermore, it tends to send people scurrying for cover, which a brawl would not do.

No one needed to call 911. The police were monitoring the meet and were shot at.

Gee, why were they monitoring it? Because they had info and because . . . the groups were . . . criminals.

2. Again, there is no way, none, to stop criminals from getting guns. The Bandidos run all kinds of narcotics. They have money. They will get guns no matter how many laws you pass. You can theorize all you want, but the guns don't respond to theory. They go where the money is. Your theory of banning guns is just that: a fantasy.

Suddenly you don't agree with market theory?

Oh, I do. And, they will pay whatever it takes.

And what is more, I am not arguing for a complete ban on guns. More controls and enforcement on illegal guns would tend to increase the costs, financial and risk-based, for criminals to hold them. Will it magically eliminate criminality with guns overnight? No. But neither Sass nor myself are claiming it would.

I just don't know that this is true. Have "more controls and enforcement" on illegal drugs increased the costs? Did it work with alcohol?

The US is a lot bigger than the UK. We would see stockpiles of guns, more smuggling of them, etc., but would the price go up substantively? I don't know.

So, well done at shooting down straw men with slogans and simple reasoning. Now can we discuss this calmly and rationally?

I don't know, can you?

The Second Amendment is not a slogan. It's a bedrock, foundational bit of this country. You're not going to waive a wand and rid us of it--which is going to make a lot of what you are proposing immaterial. When municipalities have tried to regulate guns out of existence (like in DC), they lose in court.

Unless the 2nd Amendment is repealed or modified by a vote of the people, what you are proposing is likely to start a war. And, that is not hyperbole.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Two problems:

1. You don't know. It might have been worse without guns. The gunfire gets 911 called faster than a brawl. Furthermore, it tends to send people scurrying for cover, which a brawl would not do.

No one needed to call 911. The police were monitoring the meet and were shot at.

Gee, why were they monitoring it? Because they had info and because . . . the groups were . . . criminals.

Well, yes, they monitor all such meets. You can get this from the news reports, you know?

2. Again, there is no way, none, to stop criminals from getting guns. The Bandidos run all kinds of narcotics. They have money. They will get guns no matter how many laws you pass. You can theorize all you want, but the guns don't respond to theory. They go where the money is. Your theory of banning guns is just that: a fantasy.

Suddenly you don't agree with market theory?

Oh, I do. And, they will pay whatever it takes.

Everyone has a limit.

And what is more, I am not arguing for a complete ban on guns. More controls and enforcement on illegal guns would tend to increase the costs, financial and risk-based, for criminals to hold them. Will it magically eliminate criminality with guns overnight? No. But neither Sass nor myself are claiming it would.

I just don't know that this is true. Have "more controls and enforcement" on illegal drugs increased the costs? Did it work with alcohol?

Well alcohol did get more expensive during Prohibition...

One thing that made more sense for alcohol, and makes more sense than the current stupid 40-year long "war on drugs" is better regulation rather than outright bans.

The US is a lot bigger than the UK. We would see stockpiles of guns, more smuggling of them, etc., but would the price go up substantively? I don't know.

So if you "don't know", why are you also so sure it won't work.

The Second Amendment is not a slogan. It's a bedrock, foundational bit of this country. You're not going to waive a wand and rid us of it--which is going to make a lot of what you are proposing immaterial. When municipalities have tried to regulate guns out of existence (like in DC), they lose in court.

And then when they become more violent... Didn't Chicago also lose a case on gun control recently?

Unless the 2nd Amendment is repealed or modified by a vote of the people, what you are proposing is likely to start a war. And, that is not hyperbole.

As I have said, I don't expect your country to see sense any time soon. Because you guys react to gun violence by clinging to your guns (even those of you who don't have them). Then there is more, and you cling even harder, and so on. The 2nd Amendment becomes a totem (despite the fact that not everyone does interpret it in the same way, even the Founding Fathers included people who saw it not being about an armed populace for personal defence, but about armed militia for protection of liberty - they were also mindful of the recent Shays' Rebellion), rather than being examined for what it is, and what the costs are of extrapolating it.

Unfortunately, right-wing support for the Second Amendment cannot be separated from other issues. They do believe that the liberal government is seeking to take away their rights. They do believe that the government is seeking to impose liberal values on them. They do believe that liberal government is seeking to take away their property and give it away to undeserving minorities. They believe that guns are the last line of defense against said governmental oppression. Therefore, any utilitarian/costs-benefits/consequentalist discussion on restriction of guns is a non-starter for them.

freeman3 wrote:Unfortunately, right-wing support for the Second Amendment cannot be separated from other issues. They do believe that the liberal government is seeking to take away their rights. They do believe that the government is seeking to impose liberal values on them. They do believe that liberal government is seeking to take away their property and give it away to undeserving minorities. They believe that guns are the last line of defense against said governmental oppression. Therefore, any utilitarian/costs-benefits/consequentalist discussion on restriction of guns is a non-starter for them.

I do realise that. It is just that someone once told me that Republicans were better than Democrats because they wait for the facts before judging.

What is odd is that for all the talk of what the "founders" meant or did not mean, the Constitution was a reaction to Shays' Rebellion and was followed by the Whiskey Rebellion. The Federalists did not think weak government was that good an idea.

freeman3 wrote:Unfortunately, right-wing support for the Second Amendment cannot be separated from other issues.

Yes, yes, that nasty old right-wing:

PRINCETON, NJ -- A solid majority of the U.S. public, 73%, believes the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the rights of Americans to own guns. Twenty percent believe the amendment only guarantees the rights of state militia members to own guns.

Now, that is seven years old. However, I'm dubious that the Second Amendment has become a fringe issue.

They do believe that the liberal government is seeking to take away their rights. They do believe that the government is seeking to impose liberal values on them.

That is evident. it's not a matter of "belief." We have a President who is taking unilateral action in many areas to impose his ideology upon the country.

They do believe that liberal government is seeking to take away their property and give it away to undeserving minorities.

This is bilge and beneath you.

They believe that guns are the last line of defense against said governmental oppression.

They might be.

Therefore, any utilitarian/costs-benefits/consequentalist discussion on restriction of guns is a non-starter for them.

Not true. I'm not opposed to restricting ownership of machine guns, for one.

Yes, the need for the Constitution arose because the Articles of Confederation proved insufficient to set up an effective central government (no president ,no judiciary, and crucially no right to tax) The Bill of Rights was added to appease those concerned that this new more powerful central government could become oppressive. The Federalists did not think the Bill of Rights was necessary because they believed that power not expressly given to the federal government was reserved to the people and states.

In any case, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government. There was no protection against the state passing laws to restrict guns. And somehow we are supposed to believe James Madison--a brilliant man--was incredibly sloppy in drafting the Second Amendment. Instead of just saying the government shall not infringe the right of the people to own guns he linked it bring part of a an organized militia ("well- regulated militia"). Also, by using it "to keep and bear arms" he linked the right to a military purpose ("keep and bear arms"). This is important because otherwise it could be argued linguistically that it does not matter what the original purpose as stated in the so-called preamble was--the Amendment still stated that people's right to have guns was protected by the part after the preamble even if militias no longer exist. But since keep and bear arms is a military usage then there is no protection for civilian usage in the Amendment and so some type of organized military use must be present for protection.

But given the current segment of the right-wing so loudly concerned about the government being too powerful, they will interpret the Second Amendment as they want it to be interpreted.

freeman3 wrote:But given the current segment of the right-wing so loudly concerned about the government being too powerful, they will interpret the Second Amendment as they want it to be interpreted.

Given that the current left-wing is clamoring for a dictatorship, they will interpret the Constitution as they want it to be interpreted.

Bilge, huh?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 9X14001793

Also http://www.nationalmemo.com/bigoted-her ... -as-usual/

freeman3 wrote:Bilge, huh?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 9X14001793

Yes, bilge.

I'm not worried about the government taking my property and giving it to "undeserving minorities."

That's crap of the first order.

freeman3 wrote:Also http://www.nationalmemo.com/bigoted-her ... -as-usual/

Crying "racism" is the desperate move of an empty ideology.

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:Also http://www.nationalmemo.com/bigoted-her ... -as-usual/

Crying "racism" is the desperate move of an empty ideology.

Oh, and it has nothing to do with the topic.

I said right-wing, not you personally. Btw, by property I primarily mean higher taxes.