Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread

[jayswin]

Wittynickname's killing it in this thread.

Eh, maybe poor choice of words.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Is improper search/seizure the cause of more than 10K deaths on an annual basis in Canada?

If not, then it's not a valid comparison.

First off I agree with gun control (hence thanking your post).

But I do want to point out you can't directly compare rights. They are different by nature. I can't compare the right to free speech with the right against improper search and seizure.

If you think I'm directly comparing the right against improper search & seizure to the right to bear and keep arms you're missing the point.

I as a Canadian citizen born in the post-Charter era have never had one of my rights taken away. I've never had something that I was entitled to and enjoyed just because I could be denied.

The comparison isn't on how many gun deaths there are, it's imagine having a fundamental right of yours taken away from you because of something someone else has done. Don't look at it as a broad overarching macro decision, but as an individual person who hasn't broken the law and suddenly told if you do what you've always done you're now a criminal.


In order to win the debate on Gun Control in America you need to understand the other side. Unless you can understand that losing a right, not a priveledge but a right, is a big deal and one that is unfathomable to both a Canadian and American, then you'll miss a fundamental piece to the gun control debate.

The rights issue really needs to be tackled at a personal level. National statistics won't work on the average American gun owner the same way that saying 50% of marriages end up in divorce. People still get married because "I'm not part of the bad statistic".

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

First off I agree with gun control (hence thanking your post).

But I do want to point out you can't directly compare rights. They are different by nature. I can't compare the right to free speech with the right against improper search and seizure.

If you think I'm directly comparing the right against improper search & seizure to the right to bear and keep arms you're missing the point.

I as a Canadian citizen born in the post-Charter era have never had one of my rights taken away. I've never had something that I was entitled to and enjoyed just because I could be denied.

The comparison isn't on how many gun deaths there are, it's imagine having a fundamental right of yours taken away from you because of something someone else has done. Don't look at it as a broad overarching macro decision, but as an individual person who hasn't broken the law and suddenly told if you do what you've always done you're now a criminal.


In order to win the debate on Gun Control in America you need to understand the other side. Unless you can understand that losing a right, not a priveledge but a right, is a big deal and one that is unfathomable to both a Canadian and American, then you'll miss a fundamental piece to the gun control debate.

The rights issue really needs to be tackled at a personal level. National statistics won't work on the average American gun owner the same way that saying 50% of marriages end up in divorce. People still get married because "I'm not part of the bad statistic".

There's just a really big difference between taking away a right, i.e. banning guns, which I'm not suggesting, and requiring more extensive restrictions on it, including a registry of those who own them, taking that right from people who have abused it in the past, ensuring that those who insist on their right to own firearms are educated in the use of them and emotionally stable enough to know when to use them.

I wouldn't recommend banning all weapons, not at all. But the move toward lifting restrictions on gun ownership/conceal carry laws, etc is bothersome, and it isn't even being led by voters, it's being led by special interest lobbies that are forcing their will on politicians.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Unless you can understand that losing a right, not a priveledge but a right, is a big deal and one that is unfathomable to both a Canadian and American, then you'll miss a fundamental piece to the gun control debate.

It's debatable at best that the right to own whatever and however many guns you want is actually a right at all. I don't think it's even debatable. I don't pretend to be any sort of Constitutional expert, but it doesn't say in there that an American citizen can own any gun he wants.

As much as the loons in the NRA want to frame it like "they want to take our guns away...", it's not that. Some reasonable gun control (background checks, education, sanity) is infringing on a right that doesn't even exist, so nobody is "losing a right".

Sort of related... A gun seller in the States is getting death threats for selling a "Smart Gun" that ensures that only the owner can fire it. He's selling a gun, ferchrissakes, and the gun nuts are against him even doing that.

It's like a car fanatic threatening to kill a dealer because he's selling a car with an automatic transmission. This is the kind of people they are dealing with. It may be (and sure looks like it) impossible, but they will just have to shove it down their throats eventually. You can't deal with someone like this rationally.

[CaptainCrunch]

Well he's probably getting death threats, because if he's killed when the government decides to subjugate the people nobody else will be able to pry that gun out of his cold dead hands and heroically use it to take down an armored battalion

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

It's debatable at best that the right to own whatever and however many guns you want is actually a right at all. I don't think it's even debatable. I don't pretend to be any sort of Constitutional expert, but it doesn't say in there that an American citizen can own any gun he wants.

As much as the loons in the NRA want to frame it like "they want to take our guns away...", it's not that. Some reasonable gun control (background checks, education, sanity) is infringing on a right that doesn't even exist, so nobody is "losing a right".

Sort of related... A gun seller in the States is getting death threats for selling a "Smart Gun" that ensures that only the owner can fire it. He's selling a gun, ferchrissakes, and the gun nuts are against him even doing that.

It's like a car fanatic threatening to kill a dealer because he's selling a car with an automatic transmission. This is the kind of people they are dealing with. It may be (and sure looks like it) impossible, but they will just have to shove it down their throats eventually. You can't deal with someone like this rationally.

Exactly

This is where the debate should go.

You need to define what the right actually is, and not that it's "guns or no guns" which the NRA has reframed the issue to be.

If you want to have effective change in gun control in the United States, you have to recognize that the debate has been framed not as gun control, but as a Right expressly stated in the Bill of Rights being taken away.

So you need to have a plan for effective gun control, while demonstrating at every step along the way, every single one that every American's second amendment right is protected, and how it's being protected.

Otherwise, it's status quo.


Secondly, there will always be people you can't deal with rationally. You won't get everyone on board with gun control, the same way you won't get everyone on board with anyone the government (or anyone for that matter) does or will do. You do however, need, to get a majority or more on board.

[rubecube]

A little late to the party here, but the whole "mental illness" thing is just another red herring thrown out by the gun nuts. There is no evidence that shows people who are mentally ill are more likely to commit acts of violence than those without a mental illness. The statistics actually tend to show that the mentally ill are statistically more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators.

[Flash Walken]

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

This guy at least has a justifiable reason for replacing his dick with something more accessible.

[DuffMan]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...texas-######s/

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Originally Posted by MattyC

This guy at least has a justifiable reason for replacing his dick with something more accessible.

Wait so we are mocking fat people now.......haha stupid fattie.

[DuffMan]

Joe the Plumber to Elliot Rodgers’ victims’ parents: ‘Your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights’

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...#ixzz332xyw428

[nik-]

haha. Joe the plumber. Pretty much a symbol of what's wrong with American voters. Some idiot who created a scenario where he was a wealthy business owner in his mind, and therefore didn't want to pay a ton of taxes as a rich person, so he could employee people.

Actual earnings, less than $50k and an employee of the business he hoped to one day buy. Why is this idiot even being given ink?

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Joe the Plumber to Elliot Rodgers’ victims’ parents: ‘Your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights’

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...#ixzz332xyw428

Class act. And this guy will be seen as some type of hero by many Americans for making this statement. What a sad state of affairs when the tragedy of needless violence and loss of life is less important than being able to post your pictures at the gun range to make yourself feel like more of a man.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by nik-

haha. Joe the plumber. Pretty much a symbol of what's wrong with American voters. Some idiot who created a scenario where he was a wealthy business owner in his mind, and therefore didn't want to pay a ton of taxes as a rich person, so he could employee people.

Actual earnings, less than $50k and an employee of the business he hoped to one day buy. Why is this idiot even being given ink?

Also a symbol of the overdramatic, unnecessary media coverage in the US. He always seems to pop up on the news networks with some big dramatic entrance.

"OHHHH Joe the Plumber is back and he's got some words for the President!"

"Joe the Plumber in the spotlight again! But WHY?!!"

Because you idiots went to talk to him. If Joe the Plumber sways your vote one way or the other, you are a plague to humanity.

[Galakanokis]

I now feel dumber for knowing who this idiot, Joe The Plumber is. Thanks.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I as a Canadian citizen born in the post-Charter era have never had one of my rights taken away. I've never had something that I was entitled to and enjoyed just because I could be denied.

The comparison isn't on how many gun deaths there are, it's imagine having a fundamental right of yours taken away from you because of something someone else has done. Don't look at it as a broad overarching macro decision, but as an individual person who hasn't broken the law and suddenly told if you do what you've always done you're now a criminal.

Rights in Canada are not absolute. The government infringes on your Charter-protected rights every day (see s. 1 of Charter.)

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Rights in Canada are not absolute. The government infringes on your Charter-protected rights every day (see s. 1 of Charter.)

No where did I say they were absolute. But to my knowledge, and you can correct me on this, a right or freedom has never been removed from the Charter.

But I think this is going to prove my point.

Gun control advocates and Pro gun advocates fundamentally don't understand each other. And rather than make the attempt, each side nitpicks the details of analogies and comparisons used not to be absolute but to help the other understand their point of view.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

No where did I say they were absolute. But to my knowledge, and you can correct me on this, a right or freedom has never been removed from the Charter.

But I think this is going to prove my point.

Gun control advocates and Pro gun advocates fundamentally don't understand each other. And rather than make the attempt, each side nitpicks the details of analogies and comparisons used not to be absolute but to help the other understand their point of view.

Who has proposed that the US Constitution be amended so as to remove the Second Amendment?

[Makarov]

Also, just to add: the scope of Charter-protected rights is constantly changing, sometimes shrinking, sometimes expanding. By scope, I mean the scope or breadth of activities or interests protected by the right. For example, a court may find that shouting "fire" in a crowded cinema is not expression with the scope of the "freedom of expression" protected by s. 2(b) of the Charter.