freeman3 wrote:By the way, if the intent of the Second Amendment is to allow people to keep guns in order to come together in an organized resistance (militia) against a government that has become a tyranny, then why do people need to be armed in public? Yes, Scalia (the "strict constructionist") found that the Second Amendment conferred a right to own guns for self-defense but that is clearly not what the text of the amendment indicates. The argument could be made but was not made in Heller is that even though there are no longer any militias the intent of the Second Amendment was to allow private gun ownership for purposes of organized resistance against a central government that was oppressive. Therefore, the Second Amendment protects gun ownership but not gun restrictions unrelated to potential resistance against government. Therefore, whether people should be allowed to carry guns in public becomes a political question, not a constitutional one..

That is your (tortured) opinion about the Second Amendment. If you are correct, then all thinking about the Bill of Rights is wrong. It certainly seems to protect the rights of individuals. Your understanding of the Second Amendment protects the rights of militias. For the record, Scalia is not the only one to ever view it that way. In fact, history is on his side.

Obviously, you've had your feelings hurt, thus the irrational rant that follows.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:And what evidence (as opposed to anecdote, or "good guy with a gun theory") can you present to explain why the deaths of innocent people are a price worth paying for the freedom for all kinds of idiots to own various types of firearm?

What evidence is there that a gun ban will stop bad people from shooting others? See Chicago. See Baltimore.

Chicago and Baltimore do not exist in a vacuum, they are integrated parts of the whole USA.

The evidence is based on what Sass has already said: that in countries with stricter controls, cirminals have less access to guns. [/quote]

And, again, so what? You are not going to convince Americans that we should be like the UK. Sorry.

Next.

The places with the strictest gun control laws in the US are not the safest places. The "why" is up to you to sort out.

And yet Illinois as a State is one of the safest in terms of gun deaths. Maryland is in the middle.[/quote]

The most dangerous places are the big cities--where gun control rules the day. Say what you will, as long as the US exists, as long as it has long borders, etc., there will be guns.

I would not want to risk living in a society where free speech is punished.

You have libel laws in the USA. You have censorship through the FCC (which punished transgressors) and other means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship ... ted_States

Meh, we have more freedom of speech than you do. It's not even close. Your laws protect people's feelings and are, even now, infringing upon religious liberty.

Don't you currently have a situation where States are banning scientists from talking about climate change?

Democrats are likely working on it. They are the party of establishing a central government with all authority.

I would not want to live in a society wherein the State determines whether or not I can own a gun.

Fine. Although it's not like the USA does not have any restrictions. Can prisoners get guns? Should the mentally unstable have guns? If not a state, who would decide such rules?

Bad examples.

I would not want to live in a society that discriminates against Christianity and promotes Islam.

Utter rubbish. We do not "discriminate" against Christianity. We have Bishops in Parliament. We have churches all over the place, and new ones opening up all the time (the old ones are emptying, perhaps, but that's out of choice, not state compulsion).

Actually, you do. You just don't discriminate against compliant Christianity--those who abandon what Scripture says because it's not popular.

And UK society does not "promote" Islam. We accord Muslims the same rights to religion that we accord anyone else (with the same lack of power that all non-CoE religious strains have).

Right. Whatever. Londonistan is a myth.

You did try to claim we we were discriminating against religion by citing two cases - your pal Pastor Mike shouting at people in the street, and a guy who was libeling a woman and was found guilty. Big whoop.

His name isn't Mike. And, the fact is Britain limits both speech and religion.

Most of you Britons seem to be perfectly decent people, but I'll stay here.

Ever actually been here in the last 20 years? Or just read second hand and biased accounts of how awful it is to confirm your prejudice?

Yes, I was there in 2000. I'll be back again, hopefully, next year.

So, we're just where we belong. Perfect.

If you believe your own myths, yes.

It's no myth. I like our system. You like yours. What's wrong with that?

danivon wrote:Who is more secure in their homes?

We are.

Because we have guns--and a Constitution that protects us, even if Democrats are trying to push back against that.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Danivon, you are focusing on the issues rather than the ISSUE. My issue is that the extreme left wants to prohibit things that they don't agree with rather than just not using them (in the case of guns), ban rather than not participate (in the case of prayer) and force from office/employment rather than allow a different view(In the case of Firefox/Mozilla).

Umm, no. The "issue" in this thread relates to an incidence of extreme gun violence that left several people dead.

Those criminals would be dead no matter what.

I am very thankful you don't understand the criminal mind. It means you're not given to it. I've got plenty of experience interacting with them. If you think banning guns would have stopped what happened in Waco, you don't understand them at all. The only way American criminals are not going to have guns is if a totalitarian state is established.

You can bring up your "extreme left" bogeymen all you like, you can bring in irrelevancies like smoking or school choice all you like, and you can tell me until you are blue in the face that these are the issue, but you will still be ignoring the basic point:

the thread is about gun violence.

Normal people don't get together and have shootouts. There is a mentality required. If I understand this rightly, it was about one group using a "rocker" denoting "Texas" that the other group thought it "owned." That was enough to cause a gunfight.

This is not "normal" behavior. It is criminal behavior. This is their mindset.

To answer your question about why does it not overrule? I draw your attention to the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution.

And I point out that this is just a law (albeit a Basic Law), and does not actually answer the question I asked you. I will rephrase it:

How many innocent lives is preserving a law worth?

How much liberty are we willing to surrender? How much trust are we willing to place in government?

Crooks will still get guns. So, our only protection will be whatever the State deems to send.

No thanks.

How many innocent lives? Since you want this thread to be ONLY about the forum discussion, it is about "Twin Peaks Shoot-out". And you ask how many of them were innocent?

Based upon the accounts linked, they were shooting and assaulting each other. They were not innocent.

I will try to keep on topic. You endevour(sic) to do the same.

Doctor Fate wrote:Obviously, you've had your feelings hurt, thus the irrational rant that follows.

Calling my writing irrational is all very well. You provide rhetoric, I present evidence.

My feelings are fine. But like bbauska you are scatting around the main issue (gun violence that lead to the deaths of several people), in preference for bashing your favourite targets.

The evidence is based on what Sass has already said: that in countries with stricter controls, cirminals have less access to guns.

And, again, so what? You are not going to convince Americans that we should be like the UK. Sorry.

I already accepted that I won't. You guys are way too stubborn. bbauska has already told us his mind is closed on the matter

The places with the strictest gun control laws in the US are not the safest places. The "why" is up to you to sort out.

And yet Illinois as a State is one of the safest in terms of gun deaths. Maryland is in the middle.

The most dangerous places are the big cities--where gun control rules the day. Say what you will, as long as the US exists, as long as it has long borders, etc., there will be guns.

Of course there will be guns. there are guns in the UK - legally. The question is whether you will still have the shocking levels of deaths from guns.

Do you have any observation on the facts, the data, that shows that 6 of the 10 states with the highest rate of gun deaths are also in the top 10 for permissive gun laws? Are the cities in Mississippi much more restrictive than the rural areas?

Yes, cities have higher rates of violence and crime. But not all US cities are equally restrictive. Chicago is not even in the top 10. New Orleans is by some way the worst (it was bad before Katrina, but clearly still suffering the after-effects). Now, tell me how restrictive Louisiana and NO are on guns. As far as I can tell, it's one of the less restrictive states, and Jindal is a staunch Second Amendment fan.

Meh, we have more freedom of speech than you do. It's not even close. Your laws protect people's feelings and are, even now, infringing upon religious liberty.

I don't dispute it. I dispute your assertion we have "given up" a freedom we never really had, when the reality is we are moving generally in the other direction.

But as Sass says, it's not actually relevant to the discussion on gun violence.

Don't you currently have a situation where States are banning scientists from talking about climate change?

Democrats are likely working on it. They are the party of establishing a central government with all authority.

As above, let's move on. But see who is doing the censoring:

http://www.livescience.com/50085-states ... hange.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... te-change/

I would not want to live in a society wherein the State determines whether or not I can own a gun.

Fine. Although it's not like the USA does not have any restrictions. Can prisoners get guns? Should the mentally unstable have guns? If not a state, who would decide such rules?

Bad examples.

Why so? Do you or do you not think that someone ought to make rules and enforce them to stop prisoners and the insane from having guns? If not some form of government, then who?

The difference is not whether or not to regulate weapons, but where to draw the line.

You did try to claim we we were discriminating against religion by citing two cases - your pal Pastor Mike shouting at people in the street, and a guy who was libeling a woman and was found guilty. Big whoop.

His name isn't Mike. And, the fact is Britain limits both speech and religion. [/quote]Yeah, sorry, Pastor Tony Miano, the guy whose reaction to Nepal's massive earthquake was to hope they don't rebuild their temples, not to urge people to help those in dire need.

Yes we do limit speech and religion. As does the USA. The degree of difference is very small compared to the rest of the world. Now, can we cut off this cul-de-sac?

Most of you Britons seem to be perfectly decent people, but I'll stay here.

Ever actually been here in the last 20 years? Or just read second hand and biased accounts of how awful it is to confirm your prejudice?

Yes, I was there in 2000. I'll be back again, hopefully, next year.

If you do come over, and are in the Midlands area, then let me know. We should meet up - if you can combine it with a Dip Tourney all the better. I will buy you beer (even fizzy cold ones, if you insist).

So, we're just where we belong. Perfect.

If you believe your own myths, yes.

It's no myth. I like our system. You like yours. What's wrong with that?

Nothing wrong with you liking your system. I'm just glad we don't have anything like the death rates you do from guns.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Who is more secure in their homes?

We are.

Because we have guns--and a Constitution that protects us, even if Democrats are trying to push back against that.

You are free to assert your opinion that you are safer. The statistics show otherwise.

I am very thankful you don't understand the criminal mind. It means you're not given to it. I've got plenty of experience interacting with them. If you think banning guns would have stopped what happened in Waco, you don't understand them at all. The only way American criminals are not going to have guns is if a totalitarian state is established.

"The criminal mind". How quaint. Do you know about it from phrenology as well?

Most people who commit crimes are normal people. Some criminals are hard-bitten, but even so make decisions like anyone else - based on perceived risk/reward. Perception is, of course, problematic when drugs or desperation etc come into play.

How much liberty are we willing to surrender? How much trust are we willing to place in government?

I trust the government as much as any other group of powerful people. Which is about as far as I can throw them. But liberty includes the freedom to live without fear. The government is only one source of that fear - a paranoid and heavily armed society is also going to lead to fear; high crime rates lead to fear. Fear causes us to self-restrict, reducing our liberty.

Crooks will still get guns. So, our only protection will be whatever the State deems to send.

Yes, but as Sass has pointed out, they will not be as easy to come by, and would also incur additional risks. It would need to come alongside investment into law enforcement (and not just giving them cheap army surplus hardware to use in riot control, but in proper training and equipment).

And what you Americans seem to forget is that you guys are involved in the government. You get to vote for better protection.

And it's not even a binary thing. You can introduce some restrictions to guns without banning them completely overnight. Comprehensive licensing would be a good start.

bbauska wrote:How many innocent lives? Since you want this thread to be ONLY about the forum discussion, it is about "Twin Peaks Shoot-out". And you ask how many of them were innocent?

The original post is a little wider. I will quote it in full below.

Based upon the accounts linked, they were shooting and assaulting each other. They were not innocent.

Maybe they were not (of course, some may well have not intended to get into violence and got caught up in it, but we can't ask the dead ones their intent, can we?)

I will try to keep on topic. You endevour(sic) to do the same.

Yes, because discussing gun laws in a thread where gun laws are mentioned in the first post is just as much of a digression as talking about school vouchers.

The OP (where references to gun laws are made highlighted):

freeman3 wrote:http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/17/cops-rip-hooters-knockoff-twin-peaks-after-waco-biker-gang-shootout.html

Well, at least no one is claiming that if they had only been allowed to be able to openly carry a gun in public they could have prevented this...but in any case it looks they will be able to soon in Texas, wild-west style....http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /24892513/

I just can't imagine going into public and seeing people-- non- police just ordinarily people--carrying guns in holsters. (Well, they do have to get a license requiring minimal training. )And they're arguing whether people can carry guns in the state Capitol building or college campuses. Unbelievable.

Gun laws is part of the context of the discussion. The impact of them is relevant. The issues around gun deaths is relevant. The costs and benefits of that in human lives are relevant. Whether a Muslim kid can pray in a room in 2007 San Diego is... not so relevant.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Obviously, you've had your feelings hurt, thus the irrational rant that follows.

Calling my writing irrational is all very well. You provide rhetoric, I present evidence.

Nah. You cherry-picked some stats while ignoring others. There are lies, (really bad) lies, and statistics.

My feelings are fine. But like bbauska you are scatting around the main issue (gun violence that lead to the deaths of several people), in preference for bashing your favourite targets.

No, I'm blaming the people responsible for it. Look, they would have killed each other with guns or machetes, or crowbars.

Of course there will be guns. there are guns in the UK - legally. The question is whether you will still have the shocking levels of deaths from guns.

It's not "shocking." Violent people killing each other is not "shocking."

Do you have any observation on the facts, the data, that shows that 6 of the 10 states with the highest rate of gun deaths are also in the top 10 for permissive gun laws? Are the cities in Mississippi much more restrictive than the rural areas?

Gun laws are very restrictive in Connecticut. Guns are prohibited on school grounds. Oddly, we still had Newtown.

Gun laws are very restrictive in Chicago. It's still a war zone.

Gun laws are very restrictive in Baltimore. You know, where all the peaceful folks just want to protest police excesses?

BALTIMORE (WJZ) — City crime spike. A dramatic increase in violence in Baltimore. Dozens of shooting and murders in the last few weeks following the riots last month.

No parent should ever have to bury a child, but it’s Vel Hick’s reality.

“He took my baby away from me. That’s my baby,” she said.

Her 33-year-old son Louis is now one of 96 homicides in Baltimore this year–an undercurrent of violence that’s up almost one-third from this time last year.

Yes, cities have higher rates of violence and crime. But not all US cities are equally restrictive. Chicago is not even in the top 10. New Orleans is by some way the worst (it was bad before Katrina, but clearly still suffering the after-effects). Now, tell me how restrictive Louisiana and NO are on guns. As far as I can tell, it's one of the less restrictive states, and Jindal is a staunch Second Amendment fan.

Cities are far and away the worst. This article says 60% of murders involving guns are committed in cities that voted for Obama. http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreen ... for-obama/

Chicago made the top ten in 2012: http://www.takepart.com/photos/gun-homicides

According to this one, Chicago was #1 in 2012: http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/23474 ... fbi-report

This one has a different take:

According to the FBI figures, Flint, Mich., had the highest murder rate of any sizeable U.S. city in 2012, the most recent year available. There were 62 murders per 100,000 population (which, coincidentally, was just about Flint’s estimated population that year). Trailing Flint were Detroit (54.6 murders per 100,000), New Orleans (53.2 per 100,000) and Jackson, Miss., (35.8 per 100,000). Chicago, whose population is several times bigger than any of those cities, came in 21st, with 18.5 murders per 100,000 — nearly quadruple the national average, true, but still nowhere near the highest in the country. (It’s worth noting that New Orleans didn’t report data in 2005, the year Hurricane Katrina struck.)

In fact, what’s striking is that from 1985 through 2012 only six cities have held the anti-honor of having the nation’s highest murder rate: New Orleans (12 times, most recently in 2011); Washington, D.C. (eight times, most recently in 1999); Detroit (four times, most recently 2006), Flint, Mich. (twice, also in 2010); Richmond, Va. (once, in 1997) and Birmingham, Ala. (once, in 2005).

I'd love to be able to bet you on this: eliminating gangs would have far more effect than eliminating guns (by law). Unfortunately, there's no way to do either.

Meh, we have more freedom of speech than you do. It's not even close. Your laws protect people's feelings and are, even now, infringing upon religious liberty.

I don't dispute it. I dispute your assertion we have "given up" a freedom we never really had, when the reality is we are moving generally in the other direction.

But as Sass says, it's not actually relevant to the discussion on gun violence.

Only in the sense that we believe the Second Amendment is designed to protect the First.

Don't you currently have a situation where States are banning scientists from talking about climate change?

Democrats are likely working on it. They are the party of establishing a central government with all authority.

As above, let's move on. But see who is doing the censoring:

http://www.livescience.com/50085-states ... hange.html

You've just gone full rickyp.

That article says Florida has prohibited "state environmental officials from using the term 'climate change,'"

So what? There are professors getting fired for questioning our ability to control climate change. We have a Moron, er President, telling us AGW is more dangerous than ISIS. Of course, that's because he's got no plan for ISIS and really only cares about controlling our lives and economy via anti-AGW dictates. Meanwhile, ISIS slaughters hundreds of folks a day. How many are dying of AGW?

How many models have accurately predicted AGW?

Funny to try and table something by providing links . . .

Bad examples.

Why so? Do you or do you not think that someone ought to make rules and enforce them to stop prisoners and the insane from having guns? If not some form of government, then who?

Oh brother. No modern government permits prisoners to carry guns.

The difference is not whether or not to regulate weapons, but where to draw the line.

"Shall not be infringed" seems clear enough.

His name isn't Mike. And, the fact is Britain limits both speech and religion.

Yeah, sorry, Pastor Tony Miano, the guy whose reaction to Nepal's massive earthquake was to hope they don't rebuild their temples, not to urge people to help those in dire need. [/quote]

Twitter is a poor platform for communication.

Yes we do limit speech and religion. As does the USA. The degree of difference is very small compared to the rest of the world. Now, can we cut off this cul-de-sac?

I'm happy with where I am.

If you do come over, and are in the Midlands area, then let me know. We should meet up - if you can combine it with a Dip Tourney all the better. I will buy you beer (even fizzy cold ones, if you insist)

.

Actually, this is my aim. Sir Toby (I believe he was knighted upon winning WDC in Italy) has some event highlighted next year to be GM'd by Dan Lester, who is a model of niceness.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Who is more secure in their homes?

We are.

Because we have guns--and a Constitution that protects us, even if Democrats are trying to push back against that.

You are free to assert your opinion that you are safer. The statistics show otherwise.

"More secure" means a lot more than merely "safer." Btw, if you don't live in a bad part of town, the US is pretty safe.

Most people who commit crimes are normal people. Some criminals are hard-bitten, but even so make decisions like anyone else - based on perceived risk/reward. Perception is, of course, problematic when drugs or desperation etc come into play.

Disagree. I'll put my expertise up against yours.

And what you Americans seem to forget is that you guys are involved in the government. You get to vote for better protection.

Too many are more interested in getting their slice of the pie from the government.

And it's not even a binary thing. You can introduce some restrictions to guns without banning them completely overnight. Comprehensive licensing would be a good start.

Great idea--we can tie it into voter ID!

danivon wrote:Gun laws is part of the context of the discussion. The impact of them is relevant. The issues around gun deaths is relevant. The costs and benefits of that in human lives are relevant. Whether a Muslim kid can pray in a room in 2007 San Diego is... not so relevant.

Okay, convince me.

What difference would gun laws have made in Waco?

Just info, not argument:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/0 ... ns-murder/
http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2013/0 ... story.html
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -percent-/
https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreads ... DRVE&hl=en

If I understand this rightly, it was about one group using a "rocker" denoting "Texas" that the other group thought it "owned." That was enough to cause a gunfight.

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.

Sassenach wrote:

If I understand this rightly, it was about one group using a "rocker" denoting "Texas" that the other group thought it "owned." That was enough to cause a gunfight.

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.