More mass shootings

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

>Seems to me that bank vaults are secure enough and that they are at the point
>of diminishing returns for increasing their security.

Bank vaults - agreed.

However, if there were 30,000 successful vault robberies a year, and they all involved easy to get through bank vault doors, then it would be a given that vault doors were NOT secure enough. And you can bet that new laws would be passed overnight - because politicians would lose money too.

There isn't 30,000 bank robberies OR homicides per year.

According to the FBI, there was 4,251 bank, credit union, etc., robberies in 2016.

Best I could find is 2015 is 13,286 homicides by firearms.

In researching numbers for this post, I found this on the CDC's website for 2014:

Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Number of deaths: 33,736
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6
All firearm deaths
Number of deaths: 33,594
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.5

I don't see a lot of threads on DZ.com discussing vehicle fatality numbers and what can be done about it. Interestingly, vehicles are now being used by terrorists to cause mass casualties.

Vehicles, bank vaults, and firearms. Not the same thing. If you look at the issue of private firearm ownership and use logically and not emotionally; "What if your wife was shot and killed?!", or "Why do you need a 30-round magazine?!". The basis for the disagreement is not the numbers, or the firearm laws, or possible new firearm laws.

It all boils down to what is the acceptable number of firearm homicides per year and how much restriction of the 2nd amendment is acceptable.

My personal view is that we are currently at the point of diminishing returns. It will take large increases in the restrictions to the 2nd amendment for small gains.

Derek V

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

I don't see a lot of threads on DZ.com discussing vehicle fatality numbers and what can be done about it. Interestingly, vehicles are now being used by terrorists to cause mass casualties....

It all boils down to what is the acceptable number of firearm homicides per year and how much restriction of the 2nd amendment is acceptable.

So look at it this way - it's difficult to put further restrictions on the use of vehicles because modern society is fundamentally built around them. Without vehicles most people can't go to work, to school, to the supermarket, to the beach, to the hills, to visit their family, to the DZ etc. etc.

It's difficult to put further restrictions on guns because it was once written down that everyone should be able to have guns.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,991]

>There isn't 30,000 bank robberies OR homicides per year.

There are about 30,000 deaths due to guns every year.

And again, if bank doors had that sort of failure rate - we'd see instant action.

>I don't see a lot of threads on DZ.com discussing vehicle fatality numbers and
>what can be done about it.

Right, because few people disagree on the need for vehicle registration, licensing requirements, insurance requirements, laws that require brakes, horns and seatbelts, laws that prohibit drunk driving, laws that restrict what you can tow, what speeds you can drive and where you can drive and laws that require cars be safe in collisions. Few people disagree that car deaths are serious; we have an entire government organization (the NTSB) to investigate motor vehicle crashes, another organization (the NHTSA) dedicated to highway safety and a third (FHWA) dedicated to improving road and bridge safety. We have manufacturers constantly working on ways to make vehicles safer, and once those improvements are out in the field and proven (i.e. seatbelts, airbags, crash-safety limits, child seats) they are adopted as requirements.

No one has to demand that someone do something about vehicle deaths - because thousands of people (and millions of dollars) ARE doing something. As a result, vehicular deaths per mile driven have declined drastically.

Imagine how much progress we could make on gun deaths if a similar level of effort was put into making guns safer, rather than the immediate knee-jerk "there's nothing anyone can do, ever" response that we see from the right.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Imagine how much progress we could make on gun deaths if a similar level of effort was put into making guns safer, rather than the immediate knee-jerk "there's nothing anyone can do, ever" response that we see from the right.

And imagine how much those efforts would restrict the 2nd amendment.

I do not believe "there's nothing anyone can do, ever". I do believe that it would take large restrictions on the 2nd amendment for small gains.

We could do a lot to reduce the vehicle fatality rate;

1- Require smartphone manufacturers to enable the no notifications/tests/etc. while the phone is above 10-mph feature.

2- Initial training similar to Germany's system. Expensive, but a good system.

3- Require all new vehicles to have Tesla's Auto Pilot system and require it to be used on freeways and highways.

4- Mandatory loss of driver's license for 1-year for not wearing seat belt.

5- Double the number of traffic police.

6- Require annual recurrency training and testing.

7- Require certified helmets and HANS devices to be worn.

These are just off the top of my head. Why don't we do these things today? Expensive and restrictive.

Derek V

[normiss 800]

No way to tell really, nobody counted.
#WhitePrivilege

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

These are just off the top of my head. Why don't we do these things today? Expensive and restrictive.

Expensive and restrictive on something that has to happen for people to be able to function in modern society.

Quote

And imagine how much those efforts would restrict the 2nd amendment.

Obviously the status quo is extremely powerful, but if your best argument is that the 2nd amendment exists you kinda automatically lose all the other arguments. What about justifying the second amendment in the modern world?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,991]

>And imagine how much those efforts would restrict the 2nd amendment.

Yes, they would - just as other laws have restricted the 2nd amendment, but been found legal.

>We could do a lot to reduce the vehicle fatality rate

We sure could. We've done a lot already and gotten the low-hanging fruit (like seatbelts.) The list you provide would help as well, but with diminishing gains. (In other words, a Tesla-like autopilot would help but not offer significant safety improvements over emergency braking, already a common feature in cars.)

Now let's go after the low-hanging fruit for gun deaths.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Obviously the status quo is extremely powerful, but if your best argument is that the 2nd amendment exists you kinda automatically lose all the other arguments. What about justifying the second amendment in the modern world?

Love this argument. “Justify your rights, and if you can’t or don’t do a good enough job, they will be taken away.” I don’t have to justify my rights, the 2nd amendment or any other.

I feel like you do not understand the US constitution, as amended.

Derek V

[kallend 2,027]

rushmc

Sorry John. You fail again. That was Dianne Feinstein's argument. Say it to her.

Yet another absurd statement from Marc.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

Hooknswoop

Quote

Obviously the status quo is extremely powerful, but if your best argument is that the 2nd amendment exists you kinda automatically lose all the other arguments. What about justifying the second amendment in the modern world?

Love this argument. “Justify your rights, and if you can’t or don’t do a good enough job, they will be taken away.” I don’t have to justify my rights, the 2nd amendment or any other.

I feel like you do not understand the US constitution, as amended.

Derek V

"The right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” SCOTUS, in DC vs Heller, 2008.

A wide range of gun control laws remain “presumptively lawful,” according to Scalia writing for the court. These include laws that (1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons, (2) prohibit gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, (3) prohibit carrying firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, (4) impose “conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” (5) prohibit “dangerous and unusual weapons,” and (6) regulate firearm storage to prevent accidents.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Now let's go after the low-hanging fruit for gun deaths.

And, as I mentioned in an earlier post, this is what the argument boils down to. You feel (and correct me if I am wrong) that there is low hanging fruit and I do not. I suspect that is because I am a gun owner and you are not. If you are not affected by a restriction, you are not inclined to feel it is too restrictive. Again, correct me if I am wrong.

I believe that is where the discussion should start.

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. Due to Washington, D.C.'s special status as a federal district, the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states,[1] which was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) in which it was found that they are. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.

[kallend 2,027]

Indeed. A clear statement that the right to bear arms is not an unlimited right, and that government may impose restrictions on it for several reasons.

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Hooknswoop 19]

I never said the 2nd amendment was unlimited.

Own anything newer than a musket?

Derek V

[PhreeZone 20]

As a gun owner I feel there are still some things that could be done to address some of the issues in gun related accidents. One that I would like to see is that if children under 10 are living in the home the gun owner is required to secure all guns via a storage safe or trigger lock. Failure to do so is punishable via fines or jail time. Multiple repeat offenses would be subject to forfeiture of the guns and placed on the do not sell list. It's not going to be a primary offense that could trigger a search warrent to see if someone is in compliance but as a secondary charge similar to how the police here can not pull you over for texting and driving but can pull you over for leaving your lane and then add the texting charge on to increase the punishment.

Lots of the stupid things like the micro tags, case impressions, rifleing impressions and other items are pointless in terms of preventing or at least curtailing the easiest to prevent type of gun related accidents.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[rushmc 23]

kallend

***Sorry John. You fail again. That was Dianne Feinstein's argument. Say it to her.

Yet another absurd statement from Marc.

John fails again

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYtoNR0iN88

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-D6LXgd4gdg

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,027]

rushmc

******Sorry John. You fail again. That was Dianne Feinstein's argument. Say it to her.

Yet another absurd statement from Marc.

John fails again

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYtoNR0iN88

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-D6LXgd4gdg

I will risk a warning from billvon by simply remarking that your responses here are totally clueless and devoid of all logic.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Phil1111 1,149]

kallend

*********Sorry John. You fail again. That was Dianne Feinstein's argument. Say it to her.

Yet another absurd statement from Marc.

John fails again

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYtoNR0iN88

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-D6LXgd4gdg

I will risk a warning from billvon by simply remarking that your responses here are totally clueless and devoid of all logic.

Nah he quotes a You-tube upload source that started posting on you-tube 3 days ago, entitled "Donald Trump" who also uploaded "Photogenic mountain lion found dead in California hills"

Its as good a source of facts as Breitbart.

[DJL 235]

rushmc

******Sorry John. You fail again. That was Dianne Feinstein's argument. Say it to her.

Yet another absurd statement from Marc.

John fails again

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYtoNR0iN88

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-D6LXgd4gdg

I think you missed the part where she continues that he passed the currently established set of laws. The entire first 90% of the video is her talking about how we need laws that can't be changed from one President to another.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[rifleman 70]

Dutch TV's take on the US gun crisis.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dutch-tv-nra-guns_us_59db1b36e4b0f6eed3514c55?ncid=engmodushpmg00000003

Atheism is a Non-Prophet Organisation

[yoink 321]

rifleman

Dutch TV's take on the US gun crisis.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dutch-tv-nra-guns_us_59db1b36e4b0f6eed3514c55?ncid=engmodushpmg00000003

As amusing as this is, there is a very real crisis in the US at the moment. It's a crisis that has far reaching consequences...

Somehow it's become acceptable to dismiss anything we disagree with as 'fake news', and to genuinely give it no more thought. You can provide all the facts you want on a subject but as long as it's acceptable to simply reply 'Fake!' without having a rational discourse around it then there is zero chance of reaching any compromise on a subject.

Even worse it's insidiously easy to resort to this formula. Real conversation is hard and takes thought and time. Many people will take the easier option just due to laziness and that will result in it becoming ever more acceptable.

I'd love to hear solutions to this problem, because without it people won't even recognize other ones.

[Rick 67]

New restrictions on auto drivers are being implemented.
It wasn't that long ago that seat belt use became mandatory. I think only in the last year or so (at least in Florida) texting and driving became a ticketable offense.

I am a gun owner and CWFL holder and I am in favor of reasonable restrictions being placed on gun ownership. I don't believe in the argument of too little too late. Sure it may take a while for any new laws to have an effect but jeez it looks pretty obvious to me that what we are doing now is not working.

edited for shitty grammar

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[JoeWeber 2,720]

Warnings are for kids. Risk a banning and set yourself free.

[millertime24 8]

So this subject has been in here for a bit. I've got a couple questions about what has actually happened. Why did this guy have so many guns in his room that he did not use? Why are all the guns found in his room guns that the left wants banned? Why would this guy kill himself before the authorities entered the room? Why is the media focused on "bump stocks" which are very inaccurate? Why did all of this happen on the heels of legislation making supressors easier to get?

Muff #5048

[rushmc 23]

There is no law that can stop these kinds of shootings.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln