Gun Violence Tracker (1 Viewer)

[Chicken Rob]

As long as people understand the simple fact a person holds a law degree doesn't necessarily give them a defacto clairvoyant and unbiased view of Constitutional issues. They could of course specialize and therefore be well versed but they would not in anyway be unbiased.

This is not to disrespect Jbutler.

For the record I also adhered to #1 on your list did I not...whether you agree or not? If you are implying I didn't, please re read my posts.

I don't consider you a troll here. I admit that you are doing what you claim. I don't mean to imply otherwise. I was just clarifying why I thought butler's experience was relevant to me, since I'm the one who brought it up.

To be honest, I'm more compelled by butler's arguments, and I think it's because he is being more persuasive to me, not because of his perceived authority. Despite that, I believe you're discussing the topic honestly and in good faith. Not trolling.

 

[the3rd]

I disagree that there is any cognizable threat to individual gun ownership, but in any case that was not at all my point. My point, in response to your post, was simply that there is no need for an amendment to the Constitution to permit greater restriction and regulation than is currently permitted, only a decision reversing Heller.

If you think there is no threat, you haven't been paying attention the the Democratic Party agenda since the 1990s. I agree more restrictions can be added without violating the Constitution and I'm not opposed to some of them.

I have boutique manufacturer guns valued at $1500+ each on the current used market. I'd be pretty pissed to get $200ea for them. Plus I have about $5k in reloading equipment and supplies I'd like reimbursement for. I would take the money in the form of a tax credit, but I'm not gonna be thrilled to get 10% the value when confiscated. This is part of why it's a tough issue, as I'm actually not opposed in theory to a gun free society. I'm just not sure how to get there.

Be prepared to get nothing for reloading supplies. A press isn't scary and that is what gun control is about. People being scared of things they don't understand. They will take the powder. It could go boom.
I said "average" of $200. I know guys who have antique pistols worth $10K and precision long range rifles worth $10k.

 

[jbutler]

Two points:

The natural rights argument is not backwards. The Bill of Rights was demanded by the States as a requisite for ratification of the Constitution. That is explained right in the preamble of the BOR..which most people have never heard of.

"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution"

A BORS was demanded to restrict the Fed government from interfering with PRE EXISTING rights of the people. So we have a set of clauses RESTRICTING the government. The Constituion does not grant any rights.

As for natural rights and Constitution, I encourage anyone reading this to simply Google those terms, read up, and report back any evidence supporting they were considered "mystical" and not the core base of our government. You could read for weeks on this subject

You could read for weeks on alchemy as well. No asserted natural rights are binding on our legal process. Even if a majority agreed that a "natural right" existed, it would hold no power until codified in a law. And at that point, whether it were a "natural right" would be irrelevant as the law itself would be implemented, not the underlying principle on which it was originally based. This is the system that we have and why "natural rights" are irrelevant to current law.

You state that gun violence wasn't an epidemic until 1975 but in the 200 years prior to that date gun ownership was higher as a percentage of the population. Therefore I fail to see the logic that guns themselves are the issue. This instead would point to a change in society or certain segments of it...mainly the inner city. It seems more than coincidence that the movement toward gun restrictions didn't happen until there was statistically smaller percentage of the population owning guns legally....meaning greater acceptance...meaning votes

Now you're talking about policy rationale, not what is acceptable under current law. As it happens, even the precious Heller majority made clear that the government can impose a wide array of restrictions and regulations on guns. As for policy rationale, perhaps it escaped your attention that during the 200 years prior to 1975 there had been some slight improvements made to firearms which made them quite a bit easier and more attractive to use for interpersonal crime and violence.

In any case, even if it were true that conditions in society changed and that gave rise to greater use of an existing item for crime and violence, there's no reason we shouldn't take measures to limit access to those items if it is effective in lowering crime and violence. It's only those who fetishize guns who believe they should somehow be cordoned off from regulation.

With this parroting of far left blog talk you show your cards. This is nothing more than talking points college "activists" rehash texting their friend next to them on their $600 iPhone while sipping a $5 Free trade pour over coffee.....in their safe zone

They were men of their times and FAR ahead of the rest of the world when it came to human rights. Find me another country that was more free then or now...but. Especially then. Judged by the time they lived in, as any intelligent, fair, and reasonable person would be expected to do, they were an exceptional group of men.

And no, they wouldn't change anything. Would they suggest limiting free speech because the Internet allows instantaneous transfer of false and libelous speech? I think not

...and they certainly wouldn't rely on bogus statistics from a dishonest and partisan website.

You would do a better job of representing your position if you declined to engage in explicitly partisan, ad hominem attacks.

You have a decent number of fair-minded, objective arguments you could make for limiting regulation and restriction (though you haven't made any I've seen), but people in the middle like me (shockingly to you I'm sure, I am not in favor of an extraordinarily restrictive regulatory regime) and @Chicken Rob and I'm sure many others reading this thread tend to tune out arguments when they devolve into partisan insults.

 

[jbutler]

If you think there is no threat, you haven't been paying attention the the Democratic Party agenda since the 1990s

Which do you think is more likely: that I haven't been paying attention to the Democratic Party agenda since the 1990s; or that I simply disagree with your assessment of the "threat" to individual gun ownership? These types of condescending statements aren't helpful in any discussion.

 

[Chicken Rob]

So the end game is a "gun free society"....theoretically ?

No, I'm not saying that's the end game, I'm just saying that even as a gun owner I'm not opposed to that end game. I just don't think there is a path to such a status. I think there are viable uses for guns, and we have a long way to go before you can convince me that we're ready as a society to get there. But even if we were, I don't think there's a viable path in our lifetime.

 

[Chicken Rob]

If you think there is no threat, you haven't been paying attention the the Democratic Party agenda since the 1990s. I agree more restrictions can be added without violating the Constitution and I'm not opposed to some of them.
Be prepared to get nothing for reloading supplies. A press isn't scary and that is what gun control is about. People being scared of things they don't understand. They will take the powder. It could go boom.
I said "average" of $200. I know guys who have antique pistols worth $10K and precision long range rifles worth $10k.

Like I said, I don't expect to get fair value for any of it. I think that is not going to be an uncommon feeling, and will be an impediment to de-arming America.

 

[the3rd]

Which do you think is more likely: that I haven't been paying attention to the Democratic Party agenda since the 1990s; or that I simply disagree with your assessment of the "threat" to individual gun ownership? These types of condescending statements aren't helpful in any discussion.

I wasn't trying to be condescending, but majors players have made public statements to certain audiences that they want even more than an Australian confiscation plan. Politics covers a lot of topics. It is possible for someone to overlook certain things. But I guess nothing gets past you because you are perfect. See, that was me being condescending and it was a joke. Sorry.

Can't really debate anymore. My connection is dropping out.

 

[Old State]

You could read for weeks on alchemy as well. No asserted natural rights are binding on our legal process. Even if a majority agreed that a "natural right" existed, it would hold no power until codified in a law. And at that point, whether it were a "natural right" would be irrelevant as the law itself would be implemented, not the underlying principle on which it was originally based. This is the system that we have and why "natural rights" are irrelevant to current law.



Now you're talking about policy rationale, not what is acceptable under current law. As it happens, even the precious Heller majority made clear that the government can impose a wide array of restrictions and regulations on guns. As for policy rationale, perhaps it escaped your attention that during the 200 years prior to 1975 there had been some slight improvements made to firearms which made them quite a bit easier and more attractive to use for interpersonal crime and violence.

In any case, even if it were true that conditions in society changed and that gave rise to greater use of an existing item for crime and violence, there's no reason we shouldn't take measures to limit access to those items if it is effective in lowering crime and violence. It's only those who fetishize guns who believe they should somehow be cordoned off from regulation.



You would do a better job of representing your position if you declined to engage in explicitly partisan, ad hominem attacks.

You have a decent number of fair-minded, objective arguments you could make for limiting regulation and restriction (though you haven't made any I've seen), but people in the middle like me (shockingly to you I'm sure, I am not in favor of an extraordinarily restrictive regulatory regime) and @Chicken Rob and I'm sure many others reading this thread tend to tune out arguments when they devolve into partisan insults.

I was responding in kind to the condisending tone of the post.

As for natural rights, if our right don't come from the simple fact we are human, then where do they come from?

The only other place is government, so I have to assume you believe that.

I honestly don't feel I need to defend the influence of natural rights as this concept is so universally understood then and now.

The only societies that believe a persons rights are given to them by their government are totalitarian societies and monarchies.

It has been part of western Civilization since the Magna Carta
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

 

[jbutler]

I was responding in kind to the condisending tone of the post.

As for natural rights, if our right don't come from the simple fact we are human, then where do they come from?

The only other place is government, so I have to assume you believe that.

I honestly don't feel I need to defend the influence of natural rights as this concept is so universally understood then and now.

The only societies that believe a persons rights are given to them by their government are totalitarian societies and monarchies.

It has been part of western Civilization since the Magna Carta
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

If you'll reread my post, you'll see I never disputed the influence of "natural rights" on our law. I explained that they are not relevant to the implementation of the law and therefore cannot be relied upon to explain the meaning of the text of the law.

 

[Old State]

If you'll reread my post, you'll see I never disputed the influence of "natural rights" on our law. I explained that they are not relevant to the implementation of the law and therefore cannot be relied upon to explain the meaning of the text of the law.

I read all your posts. You said several times that the concept of natural rights is "alchemy" and fanatsy. If you deny its existence than how could it have influence?

For example, is the origin of the 1st Amend irrelevant the implementation of the law.? I'll take a look when I have time, but I would be willing to bet it was referenced in various 1st amendment and other courts cases at some point. What odds would you lay on that?

Also, I'll ask again, where do we derive our rights from in your opinion?

 

[jbutler]

I read all your posts. You said several times that the concept of natural rights is "alchemy" and fanatsy. If you deny its existence than how could it have influence?

The concept of revelation has a continuing profound influence on Mormonism and yet I also do not believe that anyone is actually receiving revelation from god. All manner of non-existent things have had massive influence in many cultures.

For example, is the origin of the 1st Amend irrelevant the implementation of the law.? I'll take a look when I have time, but I would be willing to bet it was referenced in various 1st amendment and other courts cases at some point. What odds would you lay on that?

Yes, I believe it is. That's the difference between originalism and textualism. Originalists believe we should look at what was intended by those who wrote the law. Textualists believe we should look to what the law actually says. So sure, you'll find plenty of references to natural rights and to original intent by originalists or sloppy writers who veer between textualism and originalism.

Also, I'll ask again, where do we derive our rights from in your opinion?

In my view "rights" are a construct of governments and other modes of imposing civil order.

 

[Chicken Rob]

In my view "rights" are a construct of governments and other modes of imposing civil order.

In my view, rights are relative to society. We have civilization now. We have to live together. Where we draw the line between what is ok and what is not ok is decided by the people living in the shared space of the planet. As civilization has evolved, we have divided up lands into regions where we regard jurisdictions of who is in the shared space, and who is not. And those in the shared space are bound by living in compliance with what the society agrees is acceptable in that region.

So in the US, we have codified this into law. These laws are largely to protect the rights of those who live there. The desired guiding principle should be that restrictions only come when behavior imposes on the rights of others. Often time where the line between my right to do something, and your right to be protected from that action has opposing views, we end up with debates on where the line is drawn legally.

The law generally recognizes the right to self defense.

If I am starving to death, and need to steal to survive, the law does not recognize my right to steal food for survival. Clearly the death of a human is a greater loss by most standards than the theft of food, yet here we are. Despite that, I would say the starving man has the right to fend for his survival, as we all have a right to live, but now we have society, and civil order is valued by our society. Sorry starving homeless person, you're out of luck.

So where we get our rights at this point is through the rule of law as agreed upon by society as a whole, and where transgressions against that rule of law come with repercussions also agreed upon by that society. We no longer live in caves and kill our own food for survival, and survival of the fittest is no longer the law of humans in exactly the same way.

Rights come from all of us now. Through political process, public discourse and the legal system. It is how civilized society is able to function.

 

[Meddler2]

With this parroting of far left blog talk you show your cards. This is nothing more than talking points college "activists" rehash texting their friend next to them on their $600 iPhone while sipping a $5 Free trade pour over coffee.....in their safe zone

Sorry but you're wrong. I've been a voting conservative for my entire life without exception but can recognize a mistake when I see it.

Would they suggest limiting free speech because the Internet allows instantaneous transfer of false and libelous speech? I think not

Free speech is not without it's limit.

...and they certainly wouldn't rely on bogus statistics from a dishonest and partisan website.

Prove to me that the guntracker is dishonest and I'll consider it. But it's numbers are parallel with others.

Again you and everybody who believes it is a right to own a gun without normal and reasonable regulations has failed to answer the question 100% of the time it has been asked.
How many gun murders is acceptable?

Until you are capable of honestly answering that question, the rest of your posts (to me) are irrelevant.

However, I believe you will not answer that question with a number.

 

[Chicken Rob]

You do realize white men were not running though west Africa locking up black men in shackles. White men showed up with boats and bought slaves from black men who enslaved other black men.

Show me a society existing right now where land ownership doesn't increase one's power, wealth and privilege. You may not like it, but it has always been that way and the alternative is worse. To do away with property rights will lead any nation into a communist hell hole.

I'll show you a list of nations with higher quality of life indices than the US, and note that most of them have happier citizens, more social and economic equity, live healthier lives, and have more socialist/progressive governments than we do.

It's pathetic that as the wealthiest nation in the world, we can't manage to also have the highest quality of life, happiness, and health.

 

[Meddler2]

That is rich.

You chastise Old State and others for supposedly knowing the intent of men who lived long ago, then you do the exact same thing.

Did you read my post? If you did, must have missed this sentence:

Of course that is just an assumption; as is 99% of the prior 2 pages of this thread.

 

[Meddler2]

And I stand corrected.
Since 1968 gunfire deaths have exceeded all U.S war deaths. Meaningless and arbitrary to some but not this cringing conservative.

All U.S war fatalities 1,396,733
1968-2015 1,516,863

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...mericans-killed-guns-1968-all-wars-says-colu/

 

[the3rd]

I'll show you a list of nations with higher quality of life indices than the US, and note that most of them have happier citizens, more social and economic equity, live healthier lives, and have more socialist/progressive governments than we do.

It's pathetic that as the wealthiest nation in the world, we can't manage to also have the highest quality of life, happiness, and health.

We are not the wealthiest nation per capita.
Every country on that list of yours respects property rights. I was making a point about not taking that away to level the playing field.
Making the right choices about one's health doesn't cost a thing. Our people are too indulgent.
Happiness is relative and cultural. Some of the unhappiest people I know are wealthy. The pygmies in the Congo can't comprehend suicide. Ask Justin Wren.
Give it 15 years. Those countries on your list will not be as happy, nor healthy, nor as low in poverty or crime as they are today, thanks to open door immigration and PC apologists. They will still be higher than the US because we are all aboard the same sinking ship.

 

[the3rd]

Prove to me that the guntracker is dishonest and I'll consider it. But it's numbers are parallel with others.

This thread is about violent gun crime. Guntracker includes suicides. Most active posters in this thread think those numbers should be handled differently.

 

[jbutler]

This thread is about violent gun crime. Guntracker includes suicides. Most active posters in this thread think those numbers should be handled differently.

I assumed from the subject line that the thread is about all gun violence (rather than crime specifically), of which suicide is a part. FWIW I think suicide should be included when considering gun laws so it makes sense to include instances of suicide in numbers tracking gun violence.

 

[the3rd]

I assumed from the subject line that the thread is about all gun violence (rather than crime specifically), of which suicide is a part. FWIW I think suicide should be included when considering gun laws so it makes sense to include instances of suicide in numbers tracking gun violence.

Didn't you say people who don't have a psychotic disorder should be allowed to kill themselves? I don't think it matter what method someone uses to end his or her suffering. I'm willing to agree to disagree.

 

[jbutler]

Didn't you say people who don't have a psychotic disorder should be allowed to kill themselves? I don't think it matter what method someone uses to end his or her suffering. I'm willing to agree to disagree.

I'm all for assisted suicide. But to my mind that's a different issue that impulsive self harm. Ready access to a gun makes the latter much more frequently fatal than elsewhere in the world where those in such circumstances do not often have such ready access. So imo availability of guns is relevant to suicides of individuals who might make such an impulsive decision and therefore the numbers should be included in the overall rate of gun violence.

 

[bergs]

.
How many gun murders is acceptable?.

I don't think there is a number that is "unacceptable". People with firearms already killed nearly 20 innocent helpless school kids and guns are selling off the shelves faster then ever before.

That's why I stopped contributing here - it's completely and utterly fucking pointless. Just hope that you're not the one that gets shot after you kiss your significant other in the morning and head to work, and hope it happens to the next guy - cuz it's gonna happen, and it's gonna happen more frequently with the news coverage and the number and availability of guns and the number of deranged people and the lack of resources and tools and legislation available to help treat the mentally ill.

I guess my point originally was this:

A) you're going to have a difficult time telling the media what the cover without violating the 1st amendment - plus most the media companies are big businesses and need sensationalist stories to drive revenue;

B) this country doesn't give a flying fuck about the mentally ill because 1) you can't run for office for/against it and 2) there ain't no money in it;

C) so maybe, maybe, just maybe, we could put something in place that makes it marginally more difficult for the mentally deranged to get firearms.

But I forgot that:

D) American citizens are inherently selfish and they want their guns;

E) American citizens, fend by the sensationalist media, need to fear things nowadays so they can have someone in politics tell them they'll be safe, so the gun lobby has successfully convinced the public that politicians on one side of the schism are coming for all of the guns from all of the people; which

F) makes the American gun owning citizens fucking paranoid that the 2nd amendment is under attack when all some people are advocating is COMMON SENSE CONTROLS over firearms.

Cliffs for the tl;dr

- Country still fucked
- Life is an unending lottery

Ya know what's really fucked up? I used to be an optimistic conservative. Now I'm just a sadly resigned independent fatalist.

 

[bergs]

One more note - the city of Cleveland suspended (or tried to) open carry laws when the GOP convention was in town. I guess there is a number that is unacceptable and the number is one, and it depends who that individual person is. For some people, some levels of government are willing to suspend the beloved sacred cow that is the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution.

 

[jbutler]

In my view, rights are relative to society. We have civilization now. We have to live together. Where we draw the line between what is ok and what is not ok is decided by the people living in the shared space of the planet. As civilization has evolved, we have divided up lands into regions where we regard jurisdictions of who is in the shared space, and who is not. And those in the shared space are bound by living in compliance with what the society agrees is acceptable in that region.

So in the US, we have codified this into law. These laws are largely to protect the rights of those who live there. The desired guiding principle should be that restrictions only come when behavior imposes on the rights of others. Often time where the line between my right to do something, and your right to be protected from that action has opposing views, we end up with debates on where the line is drawn legally.

The law generally recognizes the right to self defense.

If I am starving to death, and need to steal to survive, the law does not recognize my right to steal food for survival. Clearly the death of a human is a greater loss by most standards than the theft of food, yet here we are. Despite that, I would say the starving man has the right to fend for his survival, as we all have a right to live, but now we have society, and civil order is valued by our society. Sorry starving homeless person, you're out of luck.

So where we get our rights at this point is through the rule of law as agreed upon by society as a whole, and where transgressions against that rule of law come with repercussions also agreed upon by that society. We no longer live in caves and kill our own food for survival, and survival of the fittest is no longer the law of humans in exactly the same way.

Rights come from all of us now. Through political process, public discourse and the legal system. It is how civilized society is able to function.

Yeah your longer-winded answer is more or less what I was intending to encapsulate in my broad "other modes of imposing civil order" category.

 

[Chicken Rob]

Yeah your longer-winded answer is more or less what I was intending to encapsulate in my broad "other modes of imposing civil order" category.

I knew that. I just thought the long winded version had value in the conversation about where our rights come from.

 

[the3rd]

I'm all for assisted suicide. But to my mind that's a different issue that impulsive self harm. Ready access to a gun makes the latter much more frequently fatal than elsewhere in the world where those in such circumstances do not often have such ready access. So imo availability of guns is relevant to suicides of individuals who might make such an impulsive decision and therefore the numbers should be included in the overall rate of gun violence.

50 countries have higher per capita suicide rates than the US, including many countries that have almost no guns like Japan, Nepal and Iceland. I don't think adult suicide is that impulsive, furthermore most of the suicides are veterans. The ones I know tend to get things done one way or another.

I think the money that would be spent enforcing new gun regulations could be better spent treating mental illness and throwing the book at multiple time felons who use a gun. A lot of prison beds can be emptied by releasing non-violent drug offenders. That also helps balance the books.

 

[Old State]

Sorry but you're wrong. I've been a voting conservative for my entire life without exception but can recognize a mistake when I see it.




Free speech is not without it's limit.


Prove to me that the guntracker is dishonest and I'll consider it. But it's numbers are parallel with others.

Again you and everybody who believes it is a right to own a gun without normal and reasonable regulations has failed to answer the question 100% of the time it has been asked.
How many gun murders is acceptable?

Until you are capable of honestly answering that question, the rest of your posts (to me) are irrelevant.

However, I believe you will not answer that question with a number.

I have never once in this thread stated any opinion on regulations. You projected that on me.

The "Guntracker" website is owned by the far left wing blog Slate which is very antigun. No where on the website do they actual detail specifically where they get their data from. It seems they simply scan the Internet for news reports. Laughable unscientific.

 

[Meddler2]

I have never once in this thread stated any opinion on regulations. You projected that on me.

The "Guntracker" website is owned by the far left wing blog Slate which is very antigun. No where on the website do they actual detail specifically where they get their data from. It seems they simply scan the Internet for news reports. Laughable unscientific.

Perhaps. But their numbers are accurate....unless you assume the media reports they are sourcing are not truthful or accurate.

 

[Old State]

The concept of revelation has a continuing profound influence on Mormonism and yet I also do not believe that anyone is actually receiving revelation from god. All manner of non-existent things have had massive influence in many cultures.



Yes, I believe it is. That's the difference between originalism and textualism. Originalists believe we should look at what was intended by those who wrote the law. Textualists believe we should look to what the law actually says. So sure, you'll find plenty of references to natural rights and to original intent by originalists or sloppy writers who veer between textualism and originalism.



In my view "rights" are a construct of governments and other modes of imposing civil order.

You seem to equate religion with natural rights and they aren't necessarily related. If a crew of astronauts were marooned on Mars there would be no government or laws. Would the individuals not have a right to self defense or freedom of expression? I say they would. They may create a government and set of laws to protect these rights, but the rights existed first.


To me the view that government gives you rights is extremely dangerous for if your rights are derived from government than hey can take them away without cause. The rejection of this concept was the bases of the Founding of our country and the reasons given for separation from Britain. The government is subservient to the people therefore the government cannot give rights. Even Karl Marx believed in natural rights. You only hear this in in totalitarian dictatorships.

Natural Rights is not the same as natural law and has nothing to do with texulaisim or originalism. If natural rights don't exist was is the point of due process? If rights are given by the government then it can just take them away at its leisure.

 

[Chicken Rob]

You seem to equate religion with natural rights and they aren't necessarily related. If a crew of astronauts were marooned on Mars there would be no government or laws. Would the individuals not have a right to self defense or freedom of expression? I say they would. They may create a government and set of laws to protect these rights, but the rights existed first.


To me the view that government gives you rights is extremely dangerous for if your rights are derived from government than hey can take them away without cause. The rejection of this concept was the bases of the Founding of our country and the reasons given for separation from Britain. The government is subservient to the people therefore the government cannot give rights. Even Karl Marx believed in this. You only here this in in totaling dictaorships.

Natural Rights is not the same as natural law and has nothing to do with texulaisim or originalism. If natural rights don't exist was is the point of due process? If rights are given by the government then it can just take them away at its leisure.

The government takes away our rights and Denys rights regularly. Sometimes unjustly. So in fact they do do this thing you seem to be implying they can't do.