Desperate manhunt for killer of 16 [ETA: 18] in Maine mass shooting as residents shelter in place

[dogs4thewin]

Is your question assuming that the answer is that she should be armed? Well, I'll let the previous figures I gave suggest that the answer is no. She shouldn't be. Because if a person needs a gun to protect themselves in case someone has a gun then you are in an arms race and there is no way out.

I'm sorry, but you are so deep into the 'weapons are necessary' mind set that there is no real hope of extricating yourself from this situation. The last massacre and the next massacre and all those to follow with a depressing certainty are the price that you will accept for doing nothing.

We have gun laws already. In fact, I am not sure if those are enforced very well, so if that is the case what good would more do.

 

[Larniavc]

Yet people would expect it to work in a hurry simply not happening

As to point A you can only push people so far if people do not trust the government or feel that the government is abusive it would not be the first time or the last time violence has broken out The more people involved the harder locking them up will be particularly when you have people who may not be violent, but would not rat either. For example, maybe they would not be violent themselves or even have any weapons, but they would not speak up either making it harder on the government. There is also the issue of certain law enforcement refusing to enforce the laws we have had that on both sides. Where both democrat and republican mayors, sheriffs ECT have said we are not enforcing that law ( usually with Republicans it has involved guns where they usually have refused to enforce laws concerning taking certain guns from people who are following the law otherwise. It makes it very hard to do when you have people in large numbers from top to bottom not helping you and/or actually opposing your cause.

None of that is reason to not enforce legitimate laws. A government can’t give into a mob of malcontents who refuse to follow the law.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Is your question assuming that the answer is that she should be armed? Well, I'll let the previous figures I gave suggest that the answer is no. She shouldn't be. Because if a person needs a gun to protect themselves in case someone has a gun then you are in an arms race and there is no way out.

I'm sorry, but you are so deep into the 'weapons are necessary' mind set that there is no real hope of extricating yourself from this situation. The last massacre and the next massacre and all those to follow with a depressing certainty are the price that you will accept for doing nothing.

First off, I don't know that I'm the one who's "deep in a mindset", as I'm willing to make several concessions on guns and have a fairly flexible position on it. Usually the sign of an ideologically entrenched position is the unwillingness to make any compromise or acknowledge any nuance.
(for instance, making the leap of suggesting that because a person may not want to get beaten up or have to beg for mercy from the bad guy and hand over all their belongings, that somehow means they don't mind 30 kids getting shot)

You seem to be circumnavigating my point and underlying question here...

In a weapons-free utopia, what does self-defense look like...doesn't have to be a gun.

Nobody is going to commit a mass killing massacre with pepper spray or a baton or a stun gun...so why are those banned in the countries I was asking about?, and what is the recourse for a person who may be physically vulnerable?

I'm willing to acknowledge the pros/cons dynamic with respect to my position as well as the externalities. I don't seem to be having much luck getting some folks to do the same for their position.


It'd be like if I was debating someone on the topic of drugs, and every time I mentioned that I felt there were some pros to letting people use the the "softer" drugs like marijuana and that it outweighed some of the cons of trying to criminalize it...and their response every time was to steer the conversation back to the opioid crisis so they could bust out the old "oh, so you just want people to die of heroin overdoses" line.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

None of that is reason to not enforce legitimate laws. A government can’t give into a mob of malcontents who refuse to follow the law.

Isn't that what the ask is that's coming from the other direction? (not you specifically, but others in this thread have said it)

When someone says "you don't need to have an equalizer of any kind, the right thing to do is just hand over your car keys, wallet, and phone to the bad guy, beg them not to hurt you, and hope for the best" in the name of civility and non-escalation, isn't that basically the same concept? "Giving in to people who refuse to follow the law"

 

[Larniavc]

Isn't that what the ask is that's coming from the other direction? (not you specifically, but others in this thread have said it)

When someone says "you don't need to have an equalizer of any kind, the right thing to do is just hand over your car keys, wallet, and phone to the bad guy, beg them not to hurt you, and hope for the best" in the name of civility and non-escalation, isn't that basically the same concept? "Giving in to people who refuse to follow the law"

None of that has any thing to do with my points.

 

[Bradskii]

We have gun laws already. In fact, I am not sure if those are enforced very well, so if that is the case what good would more do.

So as far as you are concerned, the situation is as good as it's going to get. And thoughts and prayers are all that will be offered to those who will lose loved ones.

They'll be thankful I'm sure.

 

[dogs4thewin]

So as far as you are concerned, the situation is as good as it's going to get. And thoughts and prayers are all that will be offered to those who will lose loved ones.

They'll be thankful I'm sure.

I said that they need to actually enforce the current laws. Laws do no good if not enforced.

 

[Bradskii]

I said that they need to actually enforce the current laws. Laws do no good if not enforced.

They followed the current law in Maine. Fourteen people were killed. And you want nothing to change.

 

[dogs4thewin]

They followed the current law in Maine. Fourteen people were killed. And you want nothing to change.

Actually, it seems that they did not because there are laws that forbid people who have been committed spent time in mental hospitals (especially recently from having guns, yet he did; moreover, oftentimes violent offenders are released either on bond or parole and reoffend with guns that they are not supposed to have.

 

[Bradskii]

Actually, it seems that they did not because there are laws that forbid people who have been committed spent time in mental hospitals (especially recently from having guns, yet he did; moreover, oftentimes violent offenders are released either on bond or parole and reoffend with guns that they are not supposed to have.

From here: Maine, N.Y. gun laws failed in mass shooting

'A commitment to a mental-health facility also bars people from having guns under federal law, but that measure doesn’t have a mechanism to take away any weapons a person already has.'

Want to change that?

 

[dogs4thewin]

From here: Maine, N.Y. gun laws failed in mass shooting

'A commitment to a mental-health facility also bars people from having guns under federal law, but that measure doesn’t have a mechanism to take away any weapons a person already has.'

Want to change that?

on so if I am reading that correctly the law only applies to guns one tries to get after the commitment?

 

[Bradskii]

on so if I am reading that correctly the law only applies to guns one tries to get after the commitment?

It's quite clear. Would you want to to change that?

 

[dogs4thewin]

It's quite clear. Would you want to to change that?

would be great if done very carefully else it would fail.

 

[Bradskii]

would be great if done very carefully else it would fail.

Most thing fail when done badly. So we'll assume it's done well. And there we have a step in the right direction. Only took 350+ posts...

 

[dogs4thewin]

Most thing fail when done badly. So we'll assume it's done well. And there we have a step in the right direction. Only took 350+ posts...

by well I mean legally.

 

[Bradskii]

by well I mean legally.

As opposed to illegally? What?

Make it a law. Give the police the powers. Save lives. It's what you should do as a civilised people concerned for the welfare of fellow men, women and children.

 

[dogs4thewin]

As opposed to illegally? What?

Make it a law. Give the police the powers. Save lives. It's what you should do as a civilised people concerned for the welfare of fellow men, women and children.

There are certain things police have to do by the book or else they lose a case. There are laws, but police have to EVERYTHING by the book. For example, a person could commit a crime be dead to rights, but if the police did not have a warrant (or an exception to the legal requirement for one then the person walks. Those exceptions are VERY narrow ( especially if the suspect did not give consent to the search. Another example, police do NOT have to read people their rights upon arrest you have the right to a lawyer if you can afford one one will be appointed for you, HOWEVER, if they do not and they asks them questions once in custody designed to get information about the crime then the information the suspect gives can be thrown out. The same applies if a person asks for a lawyer and the police asks them more such questions without one.

You do it perfectly by the book or you lose your cases.

 

[Bradskii]

There are certain things police have to do by the book or else they lose a case.

Then, assuming that they do, you'd have a law that would save lives.

Now, anything else you can think of that would improve matters?

 

[dogs4thewin]

Then, assuming that they do, you'd have a law that would save lives.

Now, anything else you can think of that would improve matters?

that would be great, but again police, judges, and DAS when they are involved better be perfect

I also think they are trying to regulate the wrong guns: if they are looking to save the most lives.

 

[Bradskii]

that would be great, but again police, judges, and DAS when they are involved better be perfect

Any further suggestions on reducing the carnage will be be welcome.