See the Question in Post #1


  • Total voters
    12

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
While I realize correlation is not causation, I can't help but remember that we in the US watch DAILY as mass shootings happen. These things happen almost nowhere else on earth with the frequency they happen here. Why do you suppose that is?
I am not sure what explains it. What I've said here is that the notion that amending or eliminating the Second Amendment is going to solve the problem is defective, and we have plenty of evidence which supports that conclusion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
What you are saying, Albion, is that "guns" aren't the problem, people are. And so it stands to reason that if almost every other civilized country has far fewer murders and "guns" aren't the problem, then the problem is that the American people are, by default, more violent and homicidal than people in other countries. And if that is the case, then a lot of them should not be owning the means to kill.

That doesn't follow logically. The meat axe approach almost always misses the real point, and that's what banking on the "easy answer" as the sure-fire solution to this particular problem amounts to.
 
Upvote 0

Oneiric1975

Well-Known Member
Apr 23, 2021
1,044
684
48
Seattle
✟15,282.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
In Relationship
I am not sure what explains it.

An utter mystery that no one can explain. Best to just live with the non-stop bloodshed I suppose.

What I've said here is that the notion that amending or eliminating the Second Amendment is going to solve the problem is defective, and we have plenty of evidence which supports that conclusion.

So are you OK with watching another couple hundred Americans die because we can't "explain" the problem? Just not try anything? Just let the blood flow?

Because that is EXACTLY what we in the US are planning on doing.
 
Upvote 0

Oneiric1975

Well-Known Member
Apr 23, 2021
1,044
684
48
Seattle
✟15,282.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
In Relationship
That doesn't follow logically. The meat axe approach almost always misses the real point, and that's what banking on the "easy answer" as the sure-fire solution to this particular problem amounts to.

Would you be OK if there was a surcharge on every bullet sold that went to a massive fund for mental health improvements?

Would you be OK with a gun registry? So we know who has the guns?
 
Upvote 0

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,037
13,063
✟1,077,454.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
When I lived in St. Louis County in the 1990's, St. Louis City had gun buyback programs. They were also very concerned because the hospitals had so many gunshot victims who required very expensive medical care and who were uninsured.

While obviously our country needs national health insurance, perhaps in the form of Medicare for All, we all know that hospitals who provide a lot of uncompensated care go out of business. It would certainly be fair to tax ammunition for the purpose of covering uncompensated medical expenses for victims of gun violence. It would be hard to say that bullets didn't hurt people...

Of the four states I lived in, Missouri, St. Louis County, was my very favorite. It breaks my heart to see how that state has moved so far to the right. I remember right before we moved holding a sign at the polls to vote down a referendum for conceal carry--and, thanks to the suburbs of St. Louis and KC, it failed. What happened to all those sensible people? Where did they go? (Well, we had to move, but surely most of them are still there.)
 
Upvote 0

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,037
13,063
✟1,077,454.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Look at the VDCL rallies in Virginia, thousands of people walking around with assault rifles, no one shot, cops dont bat an eye. There's much more to dig into before answering the OP question.

"Don't bat an eye?" Puh-lease. They are probably watching every move they make. There might be plainsclothesman in the crowd keeping a special eye on them.

The point of our justice system is not to wait till the first shot rings out and then act. You don't protect people that way! What about the victim of that first shot?

Do you think police are patting themselves on the back and saying, "Good day. Only one murdered, and we managed to protect the demonstrators' second amendment rights." Really?

I have written about a nearby in the wake of the Parkland massacre. Fortunately, I was demonstrating in a different city--but 80 miles to the north of me, some of the militia from Harrison and Russellville got up into trees with sniper rifles to surveil the ANTI-gun rally. At considerable expense, the city had to send out helicopters and drones to check out the action in the trees--by people who belonged to groups that have been identified with domestic terrorism.

Is that what we as a society want to spend our money on, helicopters and drones? The second amendment has gone too far.
 
Upvote 0

Oneiric1975

Well-Known Member
Apr 23, 2021
1,044
684
48
Seattle
✟15,282.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
In Relationship
When I lived in St. Louis County in the 1990's, St. Louis City had gun buyback programs. They were also very concerned because the hospitals had so many gunshot victims who required very expensive medical care and who were uninsured.

While obviously our country needs national health insurance, perhaps in the form of Medicare for All, we all know that hospitals who provide a lot of uncompensated care go out of business. It would certainly be fair to tax ammunition for the purpose of covering uncompensated medical expenses for victims of gun violence. It would be hard to say that bullets didn't hurt people...

Of the four states I lived in, Missouri, St. Louis County, was my very favorite. It breaks my heart to see how that state has moved so far to the right. I remember right before we moved holding a sign at the polls to vote down a referendum for conceal carry--and, thanks to the suburbs of St. Louis and KC, it failed. What happened to all those sensible people? Where did they go? (Well, we had to move, but surely most of them are still there.)

I, too, lived in St. Louis in 1990. My wife is from that area. I loved St. Louis. So many great Italian restaurants! I would have gladly moved closer to Talayna's (before they moved to Skinker). I would, of course, now weight >1000 metric tons, but gosh I miss that place!
 
Upvote 0

hislegacy

Memories pre 2021
Supporter
Nov 15, 2006
43,649
13,930
Broken Arrow, OK
✟689,334.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If a police officer can justify shooting or killing someone because "they had a gun", did that person really have the right to bear arms?

Not answerable as a yes or no question. example

If a police officer can justify running a car off the road and causing injury to the driver because "they were driving", did that person really have the right to drive?

We have the right to bear arms as provided for in the 2nd Amendment. Some states we also have the right to open carry (like my state). What we do not have the right to do is brandish it when not in self defense, we do not have the right to posses it if we are felons - we do not have the right to use it to meness people with it and we certainly do not have the right to use it in a crime.

I am 61 years old. I have carried both concealed and open carry since 1983. I've shot no one, I have pulled the weapon two times, once in defense of myself and once to stop an active rape. I have walked past officers in restaurants, on the street etc and never one time been stopped. (and I am not white).

Want to know why?

I don't break the law. That's why.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

Oneiric1975

Well-Known Member
Apr 23, 2021
1,044
684
48
Seattle
✟15,282.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
In Relationship
I am 61 years old. I have carried both concealed and open carry since 1983. I've shot no one, I have pulled the weapon two times, once in defense of myself and once to stop an active rape. I have walked past officers in restaurants, on the street etc and never one time been stopped. (and I am not white).

Want to know why?

I don't break the law. That's why.

That is great for you. Tamir Rice and Philandro Castile had a somewhat different experience from you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brihaha
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Oneiric1975

Well-Known Member
Apr 23, 2021
1,044
684
48
Seattle
✟15,282.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
In Relationship
I didn't say that either. But the proposal to ban guns as if doing that will solve the problem is wishful thinking at best. That's the message.

Your position appears to be that since restricted gun laws in Chicago don't work that we are OK ignoring how restrictive gun laws have worked in almost every single developed nation on earth.

I mean, it's great when one has a single data point that doesn't fit the curve but to toss out the curve because one data point doesn't fit isn't really rational.
 
Upvote 0

SummerMadness

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
18,201
11,829
✟331,677.00
Faith
Catholic
I think we always have to remember the second amendment is not treated as applying to everyone.

Man Killed by Police at Alabama Mall Was a 'Good Guy with a Gun'
On Thanksgiving night, the sounds of gunshots inside an Alabama mall sent shoppers diving for cover and sprinting for exits. Outside the mall, Emantic Fitzgerald Bradford Jr. pulled out a gun and rushed to protect shoppers, his family said.

But Mr. Bradford was soon dead. An off-duty police officer working security at the mall, Riverchase Galleria in Hoover, Ala., fatally shot him, the authorities said. In the days that followed, the official account by the Hoover Police Department of what happened inside and outside the mall has shifted drastically.

At first, the officer was praised for stopping a gunman after two people were shot outside a Footaction store on the second floor. Then the police said that Mr. Bradford was not in fact the gunman and that the true gunman remained on the loose.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Your position appears to be that since restricted gun laws in Chicago don't work that we are OK ignoring how restrictive gun laws have worked in almost every single developed nation on earth.
Chicago was only a quick example. Many more could have been cited. And as for comparing the US with every other nation on Earth, I thought that we already got past that mistake.

The fact that we appear to have more of a gun problem than some of those do has already been addressed by saying that we need to figure out what the difference is and how that may have affected the problem.

We cannot just say that X works in Country Y, so if we do the same thing, the outcome is assured.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,643
14,530
Here
✟1,196,492.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Per DC v. Heller ruling.

The right to have a firearm is an individual right, but it is not unlimited.

There's also a difference between "having/carrying" a gun, and either using it or brandishing it in a way that can be construed as threatening, thus drawing a response from law enforcement.

Is there a particular case you're referencing as a better point of context?

Meaning, just because I have a right to have a gun... if I'm involved in another crime of some sort, and start reaching for it when LEOs try to apprehend, and they shoot me, that's going to be considered justified.

That's very different than a police officer gunning someone down just because they happen to notice a glock in a holster on their hip while they're minding their own business.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

hislegacy

Memories pre 2021
Supporter
Nov 15, 2006
43,649
13,930
Broken Arrow, OK
✟689,334.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That is great for you. Tamir Rice and Philandro Castile had a somewhat different experience from you.

Tamir Rice:
According to the release, federal prosecutors with both the Civil Rights Division and the US Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Ohio concluded that they could not prove that Rice's constitutional rights were violated or the officers obstructed justice.

"In order to establish a federal civil rights violation, the government would have to prove that Officer Loehmann's actions were unreasonable under the circumstances, and that his actions were willful," federal attorneys said. " ... an officer is permitted to use deadly force where he reasonably believes that the suspect posed an imminent threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others. "
Prosecutors said that because the officers' stated that Loehmann thought Rice was going for a gun, the Justice Department would have to prove that "1) Tamir was not reaching for his gun; and 2) that Officer Loehmann did not perceive that Tamir was reaching for his gun, despite his consistent statements to the contrary."
You are correct - I have never made a motion like going for my weapon. He did and that is why the officer was not charged legally nor civilly. your point fails

As for Philandra Castile, after reviewing the dashcam video and other evidence, the officer was acquitted of all charges and never sued civilly. So my response is the same as above.
Personal Example: When I pulled my weapon on the rapist and held him, police came and I immediately holstered my weapon and put my hands up. They knocked me on the ground and sat un me, hand cuffing me after taking my side arm. That is what they are trained to do - no harm, no foul. When all the yelling and screaming stopped, we talked. Guess what?! Three out of the four officers where white. (Gasp!). Other than muddy clothes I suffered no physical injury and the officers actually thanked me. And I am not white! Go figure.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Oneiric1975

Well-Known Member
Apr 23, 2021
1,044
684
48
Seattle
✟15,282.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
In Relationship
Chicago was only a quick example. Many more could have been cited. And as for comparing the US with every other nation on Earth, I thought that we already got past that mistake.

Why is America different?

We cannot just say that X works in Country Y, so if we do the same thing, the outcome is assured.

But we haven't really tried a nationwide strict gun law set. I also understand that will NEVER be tried. So we're left with thoughts and prayers.

You didn't answer my earlier question: would you be OK with a significant surcharge on every gun and bullet purchase for a fund that went to massive improvements in mental health here in the US? Wouldn't that be a reasonable ask?

What about a gun registry?
 
Upvote 0

Oneiric1975

Well-Known Member
Apr 23, 2021
1,044
684
48
Seattle
✟15,282.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
In Relationship
Tamir Rice:
According to the release, federal prosecutors with both the Civil Rights Division and the US Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Ohio concluded that they could not prove that Rice's constitutional rights were violated or the officers obstructed justice.

"In order to establish a federal civil rights violation, the government would have to prove that Officer Loehmann's actions were unreasonable under the circumstances, and that his actions were willful," federal attorneys said. " ... an officer is permitted to use deadly force where he reasonably believes that the suspect posed an imminent threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others. "
Prosecutors said that because the officers' stated that Loehmann thought Rice was going for a gun, the Justice Department would have to prove that "1) Tamir was not reaching for his gun; and 2) that Officer Loehmann did not perceive that Tamir was reaching for his gun, despite his consistent statements to the contrary."
You are correct - I have never made a motion like going for my weapon. He did and that is why the officer was not charged legally nor civilly. your point fails

As for Philandra Castile, after reviewing the dashcam video and other evidence, the officer was acquitted of all charges and never sued civilly. So my response is the same as above.
Personal Example: When I pulled my weapon on the rapist and held him, police came and I immediately holstered my weapon and put my hands up. They knocked me on the ground and sat un me, hand cuffing me after taking my side arm. That is what they are trained to do - no harm, no foul. When all the yelling and screaming stopped, we talked. Guess what?! Three out of the four officers where white. (Gasp!). Other than muddy clothes I suffered no physical injury and the officers actually thanked me. And I am not white! Go figure.

Tamir Rice was a 12 year old CHILD. Playing with a toy gun.

Philandro Castile clearly stated he had a weapon which was licensed and he said so calmly and clearly.

Both were gunned down.

Parse it however you feel necessary to make it all make sense to you.

It will never make sense to me.
 
Upvote 0

Oneiric1975

Well-Known Member
Apr 23, 2021
1,044
684
48
Seattle
✟15,282.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
In Relationship
Do police have that right? To shoot someone merely because a gun is found on the person or the seat of his car? I don't think so.

Yet Philandro Castile is dead. He clearly stated to the police that he had a registered weapon that he was licensed to have and he was gunned down.

And no one went to jail for doing so.

ERGO: Philandro Castile who didn't wave his gun or threaten anyone was killed for gun possession.
 
Upvote 0

98cwitr

Lord forgive me
Apr 20, 2006
20,020
3,473
Raleigh, NC
✟449,894.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
The point of our justice system is not to wait till the first shot rings out and then act. You don't protect people that way!

Sure you do; you at least protect people's rights that way. We don't arrest people for thoughtcrime, nor are we living in a real life "minority report" situation.

Do you think police are patting themselves on the back and saying, "Good day. Only one murdered, and we managed to protect the demonstrators' second amendment rights." Really?

But no one was shot, much less murdered. What's your point?

I have written about a nearby in the wake of the Parkland massacre. Fortunately, I was demonstrating in a different city--but 80 miles to the north of me, some of the militia from Harrison and Russellville got up into trees with sniper rifles to surveil the ANTI-gun rally. At considerable expense, the city had to send out helicopters and drones to check out the action in the trees--by people who belonged to groups that have been identified with domestic terrorism.

Are people not allowed to climb trees with rifles? What crime were they committing?

Is that what we as a society want to spend our money on, helicopters and drones? The second amendment has gone too far.

No. I say that was an overreaction anyway.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SummerMadness

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
18,201
11,829
✟331,677.00
Faith
Catholic
Yet Philandro Castile is dead. He clearly stated to the police that he had a registered weapon that he was licensed to have and he was gunned down.

And no one went to jail for doing so.

ERGO: Philandro Castile who didn't wave his gun or threaten anyone was killed for gun possession.
Have you ever noticed that the death of Philando Castile is defended as being okay, citing the officer acquittal. Yet when it comes to Derek Chauvin, they're all up in arms about it being an injustice. It seems pretty clear that it's all about supporting police officers regardless of the case.

Hence the reason why the right to bear arms for law abiding citizens is not universal, they only see it as applying to certain people.
 
Upvote 0