[W: #105] [#181] Ten killed in shooting near LA after Lunar New Year event

[Infinite Chaos]

Well at least 2 federal courts disagree with you. Our rights apply to individuals, every person, not the guns.

First let me apologise for atomising your comments, just easier to address all the parts like this.

Next, yes of course rights apply to individuals but you were arguing the undue cost of asking / demanding / mandating that people get training. I will say that is a straw man argument outside the USA but within the USA, nearly every mention of guns or gun ownership and any restrictions will raise hackles.

RE: training, I've never seen a single poster, either side, ever say training wasnt a good idea. However what's not usually addressed is that a) many gun owners do get training, whether it's in their upbringing, hunter safety, as new shooters, for fun, etc. and b) no one can agree on how much training is adequate. Any states that have such a requirement for 'carrying' firearms all have disparate criteria.

Training to me, is more than just learning to aim and hit the target: it includes understanding and learning what guns can do to the human body, learning how to keep guns safe in the home (safe from your own kids) how to use guns responsibly. The NRA has extolled Switzerland in the past for high gun ownership but the Swiss also have demanding training starting from youth with shooting competitions and an expectation of responsibility. It hasn't cured gun violence but it's certainly curbed the excesses prevalent in the USA.

Switzerland has a stunningly high rate of gun ownership — here's why it doesn't have mass shootings

Here's what the US can learn from Switzerland, which has nearly eliminated mass shootings while maintaining a high rate of gun ownership.

www.businessinsider.com

My nephew is Swiss, we've visited and travelled among young Swiss heading off to yearly training with their rifles on public transport. It's safe and they are responsible gun owners by and large - however their culture is not built around guns or the worship of them.

Also, the number of guns as a cause 'idea' is a non-starter.

It is when you see how poor the standards for keeping them safe / lax care within the family home or even 6 year old kids sneaking a loaded gun into primary school to shoot their teacher.

There are ~400 million guns in the US and ~35,000 gun deaths/yr. THAT ratio of guns : gun deaths is so small you need an electron microscope to see it.

It's only relevant to say that until you compare that ratio against other developed nations that allow gun ownership...

Do you consider my opinion in the bold valid? Yes, no, and why/why not? More or less as a better place to focus efforts on?

Yes, I agree limiting gun ownership from the dangerous / the mentally unstable works - that's a no brainer to me. The Swiss have very strict rules about that too (if you read the linked article)

An armed populace is Not a threat to democracy. It IS a deterrent to Dictatorship

Funny, I've read many Americans say "America is not a Democracy but a Republic."

 

[mrjurrs]

PCPI (Politically Correct Pseudo Intellectual) posts are usually not worth response. I haven't put you on Ignore solely for an occasional heads up on the viewpoint of the land of fuits and nuts.

I'll save you the time. And recognize that your inability to respond makes you feel inadequate.

 

[Lursa]

First let me apologise for atomising your comments, just easier to address all the parts like this.

No worries.

Next, yes of course rights apply to individuals but you were arguing the undue cost of asking / demanding / mandating that people get training. I will say that is a straw man argument outside the USA but within the USA, nearly every mention of guns or gun ownership and any restrictions will raise hackles.

But again, you are arguing against federal-level court decisions that pointed out the undue burden placed on individuals to exercise a right. I dont understand how that can be a straw man? Esp when your default seems to be that people 'need' training and dont have it/get it.

Also, there are many incidents where cops' kids get hold of their guns and kill, accidentally or intentionally. It's not about training, it's about responsibility and I dont believe that can be legislated.

Training to me, is more than just learning to aim and hit the target: it includes understanding and learning what guns can do to the human body, learning how to keep guns safe in the home (safe from your own kids) how to use guns responsibly. The NRA has extolled Switzerland in the past for high gun ownership but the Swiss also have demanding training starting from youth with shooting competitions and an expectation of responsibility. It hasn't cured gun violence but it's certainly curbed the excesses prevalent in the USA.

Switzerland has a stunningly high rate of gun ownership — here's why it doesn't have mass shootings

Here's what the US can learn from Switzerland, which has nearly eliminated mass shootings while maintaining a high rate of gun ownership.

www.businessinsider.com

My nephew is Swiss, we've visited and travelled among young Swiss heading off to yearly training with their rifles on public transport. It's safe and they are responsible gun owners by and large - however their culture is not built around guns or the worship of them.

Can you explain the value of that in preventing gun crimes, as I mentioned? All the offender has to do is point and pull a trigger. They dont care about collateral damage or backstops.

It is when you see how poor the standards for keeping them safe / lax care within the family home or even 6 year old kids sneaking a loaded gun into primary school to shoot their teacher.

Agreed, but please see above re: cops.

It's only relevant to say that until you compare that ratio against other developed nations that allow gun ownership...

How so, please explain that? Please use my comment as the basis for your response, esp. where I wrote it only takes 1 person, 1 gun, intent, etc.

Yes, I agree limiting gun ownership from the dangerous / the mentally unstable works - that's a no brainer to me. The Swiss have very strict rules about that too (if you read the linked article)

Everyone agrees with that. The problem is identifying and stopping such individuals.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

But again, you are arguing against federal-level court decisions that pointed out the undue burden placed on individuals to exercise a right.

My failure to explain or it's a cultural thing then. I believe rights have responsibilities. A woman may have a right to carry a baby to term or abort (not going down that rabbit hole) but she bears a responsibility to the child whether she carries through to term or not. In the US, I might have a right to buy any weapon I want but I strongly believe that I have the responsibility to learn to use it safely and maintain it. I have the right as an adult to drive a car but I have the responsibility to learn to drive it safely and in a way that doesn't put others at risk.
The argument that allowing untrained people to buy a weapon something that could kill or maim others allows them to exercise a right does not wash with me. What I'm also arguing is that I am from a culture that doesn't view guns and gun ownership with the almost cult like status I perceive in the US. I've read US posters use the argument abut knives or other tools that could kill but there is a world of difference between a kitchen knife and an AR-15 (for example)
I have no idea what the politics of the judges was / is but in a culture which reveres gun rights, I'm willing to bet they erred on the side of not requiring anything that could impinge on the relevant Amendment of the constitution.

your default seems to be that people 'need' training

Yep and I stand by that. I've already explained that training is not just about pulling the trigger but developing an understanding and respect for guns and their safe use / storage and accessibility.

Also, there are many incidents where cops' kids get hold of their guns and kill, accidentally or intentionally. It's not about training, it's about responsibility and I dont believe that can be legislated.

We have armed police in many European nations and I've not read any cases of their kids getting hold of their guns to kill (accidentally or intentionally) - it comes back to training and the culture around guns here.

Can you explain the value of that in preventing gun crimes, as I mentioned?

First, let's establish a common base - do you feel all murders and homicides (not suicides) are to do with mental illness in the USA? We can leave out self defence or justifiable shootings by police also.
So to answer your question directly, I feel I already have. In other countries, training includes yearly inspection, making sure guns are locked away when not being used and that some form of suitability assessment takes place.

Everyone agrees with that. The problem is identifying and stopping such individuals.

Not really, I have read pro-gun guys here on the forums defending the right of mentally unstable to have guns. It's sort of moved among them now to a form of identifying and putting away but I think paying for it is still an issue.
On a day I have time, I might search the forum for such posts (protecting the right of anyone to have guns) but that will be a while yet.

 

[coyote505]

only relevant to say that until you compare that ratio against other developed nations that allow gun ownership...

First let me apologise for atomising your comments, just easier to address all the parts like this.


Funny, I've read many Americans say "America is not a Democracy but a Republic."

People less wrapped up in their PC rhetoric than you recognize that a "Republic" is a Representative Democracy.

 

[Lursa]

My failure to explain or it's a cultural thing then. I believe rights have responsibilities. A woman may have a right to carry a baby to term or abort (not going down that rabbit hole) but she bears a responsibility to the child whether she carries through to term or not. In the US, I might have a right to buy any weapon I want but I strongly believe that I have the responsibility to learn to use it safely and maintain it. I have the right as an adult to drive a car but I have the responsibility to learn to drive it safely and in a way that doesn't put others at risk.
The argument that allowing untrained people to buy a weapon something that could kill or maim others allows them to exercise a right does not wash with me. What I'm also arguing is that I am from a culture that doesn't view guns and gun ownership with the almost cult like status I perceive in the US. I've read US posters use the argument abut knives or other tools that could kill but there is a world of difference between a kitchen knife and an AR-15 (for example)
I have no idea what the politics of the judges was / is but in a culture which reveres gun rights, I'm willing to bet they erred on the side of not requiring anything that could impinge on the relevant Amendment of the constitution.

I mentioned that you cannot legislate 'responsibility' with the example of cops being careless...and they have loads of training. One here left a loaded gun in his van with 2 kids and went into store. 6 yr old son shot and killed sister. How much more training did he require?

Your acceptance of the 2nd is not an argument. It's not likely to go anywhere and if that's your stance and your excuse when you argue...what's the point?

Same for questioning the federal court decisions, one of which was CA. Many of these decisions, including Heller, apparently you dont like. I'm surprised you just dismiss the discrimination against the poor and minorities to exercise their rights equally...I find those decisions very Constitutional and valid.

Since you cant provide any substance of fact for the necessity of mandatory training, I'm not accepting your feelings as an argument I already disputed it and you have not directly refuted those.

Yep and I stand by that. I've already explained that training is not just about pulling the trigger but developing an understanding and respect for guns and their safe use / storage and accessibility.

And yet, again, I posted examples you did not even directly address. You cannot remotely support your belief that many people dont already have it or get it when they get the gun.

We have armed police in many European nations and I've not read any cases of their kids getting hold of their guns to kill (accidentally or intentionally) - it comes back to training and the culture around guns here.

I call total bullshit on this.

What does that have to do with anything? What additional training do they have that our cops need? It's very simple, you dont leave unattended loaded guns around a home or car with kids. What more do you suggest? If that's enforced, if people, even cops, do it...no kids get hold of the guns. It's about responsibility...how do you 'make' people more responsible?

 

[Lursa]

First, let's establish a common base - do you feel all murders and homicides (not suicides) are to do with mental illness in the USA? We can leave out self defence or justifiable shootings by police also.

No.

So to answer your question directly, I feel I already have. In other countries, training includes yearly inspection, making sure guns are locked away when not being used and that some form of suitability assessment takes place.

Do you think people, including cops, dont know that? It's in every instructions booklet that comes with a gun, along with certain locks.

Unless it's a collectible, guns are sold, even privately, with a case, locks, info, etc.

You havent presented any solid foundation for demanding mandatory training that would discriminate against the poor and minorities...only your feelings.

Not really, I have read pro-gun guys here on the forums defending the right of mentally unstable to have guns. It's sort of moved among them now to a form of identifying and putting away but I think paying for it is still an issue.

On a day I have time, I might search the forum for such posts (protecting the right of anyone to have guns) but that will be a while yet.

Again, I call BS. I read a lot of these threads and am a member of gun forums. NONE of them ever advocate for that.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Again, I call BS. I read a lot of these threads and am a member of gun forums. NONE of them ever advocate for that.

Ah, I guess polite discussion and disagreement is about to go out the window. I'm just addressing the none element here from a quick search (including one thread you took part in)

Who's a good gun control debater.

My pet "fix" for the gun issue is to provide for universal mental health screening, and then require that be kept updated in order to purchase a firearm. The goal would be to identify and flag those struggling and get them help if they want it. And until they pass a fresh screening, they would...

debatepolitics.com

What is your bipartisan compromise on gun control?

Here's mine: Enhanced background checks Require background checks for gun show sales and internet sales Prohibit those on the terrorist watch list from purchasing firearms, but allow them to appeal the decision in an expedited way to ensure due process 50-state reciprocity agreement for...

debatepolitics.com

Short thread: interesting angle

Mental Health And Gun Violence

Soon after the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, President Obama made mental health care a major part of his plan to curb gun violence. And this week, following the two-year anniversary of that crime, Rep. Tim Murphy is calling for federal legislation he believes would help stop...

debatepolitics.com

Back to people arguing against any infringement of the right to own guns - too many to pick individual posts

Mental Health and guns [W:280]

Should an individual who wants to purchase a gun be required to obtain a "clean bill of mental health" from a psychiatrist? Why or why not?

debatepolitics.com

 

[Lursa]

Ah, I guess polite discussion and disagreement is about to go out the window. I'm just addressing the none element here from a quick search (including one thread you took part in)

Who's a good gun control debater.

My pet "fix" for the gun issue is to provide for universal mental health screening, and then require that be kept updated in order to purchase a firearm. The goal would be to identify and flag those struggling and get them help if they want it. And until they pass a fresh screening, they would...

debatepolitics.com

What is your bipartisan compromise on gun control?

Here's mine: Enhanced background checks Require background checks for gun show sales and internet sales Prohibit those on the terrorist watch list from purchasing firearms, but allow them to appeal the decision in an expedited way to ensure due process 50-state reciprocity agreement for...

debatepolitics.com

Short thread: interesting angle

Mental Health And Gun Violence

Soon after the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, President Obama made mental health care a major part of his plan to curb gun violence. And this week, following the two-year anniversary of that crime, Rep. Tim Murphy is calling for federal legislation he believes would help stop...

debatepolitics.com

Back to people arguing against any infringement of the right to own guns - too many to pick individual posts

Mental Health and guns [W:280]

Should an individual who wants to purchase a gun be required to obtain a "clean bill of mental health" from a psychiatrist? Why or why not?

debatepolitics.com

I didnt read any of them, why bother? "Calling BS" is a turn of phrase and quite civil...you are using it as an excuse to escape the discussion and questions you cannot answer. I hope at least you learned something new.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

I didnt read any of them, why bother?

I guess we're done then. I was returning to address the rest of your previous posts but hey. Have a nice life.

 

[Lursa]

I guess we're done then. I was returning to address the rest of your previous posts but hey. Have a nice life.

You said you were only 'just addressing' one thing in your post. And it wasnt even what we'd been primarily focused on discussing.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

You said you were only 'just addressing' one thing in your post.

Yeah, it was a quick reply as I was due to go to another Fire Station to deliver training. I intended to go through the rest of your post and reply when I had time.

Nevermind: as I said before, guess we're done. Have a nice life.

 

[Lursa]

Yeah, it was a quick reply as I was due to go to another Fire Station to deliver training. I intended to go through the rest of your post and reply when I had time.

Nevermind: as I said before, guess we're done. Have a nice life.

I'm fine with that, since I was able to demonstrate my argument.