Mass Shooting in San Bernardino: 2 shooters and a guy with a warrant

[Dugout DickStone]

Struggling to find the relevance

My point is that I think we are not doing nearly as bad in reducing violence as we are being made to feel like.  I also don't believe that gun control laws are going to meaningfully reduce instances of planned terrorist or crazy person mass violence, so I think we should direct our attention towards reducing terrorists and crazy people trying to shoot (or blow) places up.

I think the murder rate has gone down because the crack wars of the inner cities have subsided.  I still think there can be more done to restrict the ability of a psycho to unload 80 rounds on a gathering of unarmed people.

[Dugout DickStone]

Struggling to find the relevance

My point is that I think we are not doing nearly as bad in reducing violence as we are being made to feel like.  I also don't believe that gun control laws are going to meaningfully reduce instances of planned terrorist or crazy person mass violence, so I think we should direct our attention towards reducing terrorists and crazy people trying to shoot (or blow) places up.

Also, gun ownership continues to increase. More guns, and yet less gun crimes. Whether that is causation or correlation doesn't really matter - but it does call into question the demands for "more gun control."

Buy all the revolvers you want.  Literally.  they should and will always to continue to be legal.

[Emo EMAW]

Struggling to find the relevance

My point is that I think we are not doing nearly as bad in reducing violence as we are being made to feel like.  I also don't believe that gun control laws are going to meaningfully reduce instances of planned terrorist or crazy person mass violence, so I think we should direct our attention towards reducing terrorists and crazy people trying to shoot (or blow) places up.

I think the murder rate has gone down because the crack wars of the inner cities have subsided.  I still think there can be more done to restrict the ability of a psycho to unload 80 rounds on a gathering of unarmed people.

ATF Form 4473 already asks if purchaser is addicted to drugs, is mentally defective, etc. 

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Buy all the revolvers you want.  Literally.  they should and will always to continue to be legal.

So six bullets in a revolver is Ok, but 12 in a magazine isn't?

[star seed 7]

mocat  back me up, but i believe that's literally twice as many 

[Emo EMAW]

Struggling to find the relevance

My point is that I think we are not doing nearly as bad in reducing violence as we are being made to feel like.  I also don't believe that gun control laws are going to meaningfully reduce instances of planned terrorist or crazy person mass violence, so I think we should direct our attention towards reducing terrorists and crazy people trying to shoot (or blow) places up.

Also, gun ownership continues to increase. More guns, and yet less gun crimes. Whether that is causation or correlation doesn't really matter - but it does call into question the demands for "more gun control."

Buy all the revolvers you want.  Literally.  they should and will always to continue to be legal.

Handguns account for like 99% of shootings in the country, so this seems like an odd stance.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

mocat  back me up, but i believe that's literally twice as many 

I guess it takes longer to reload a revolver than swapping out a magazine. I'll grant you that.

[CNS]

Love the drama about keeping rights from the pubs that all think it great that all our calls and emails can be intercepted without warrants.

I don't think you can say shitting on the fourth amendment is a partisan thing at this point.

I'm not.  I am saying it's silly that we get some life or death breathing story dramatized to relate to the gun debate, but nothing of the sort on privacy.

[DQ12]

Love the drama about keeping rights from the pubs that all think it great that all our calls and emails can be intercepted without warrants.

I don't think you can say shitting on the fourth amendment is a partisan thing at this point.

I'm not.  I am saying it's silly that we get some life or death breathing story dramatized to relate to the gun debate, but nothing of the sort on privacy.

I still don't really see your point.  Is the left not passionate about certain rights?  Are they not hypocritical when they "dramatize" the issue they're passionate about when they're relatively silent on 4th Amendment issues? 

[gatoveintisiete]

Struggling to find the relevance

My point is that I think we are not doing nearly as bad in reducing violence as we are being made to feel like.  I also don't believe that gun control laws are going to meaningfully reduce instances of planned terrorist or crazy person mass violence, so I think we should direct our attention towards reducing terrorists and crazy people trying to shoot (or blow) places up.

This is a great post, he's still not going to find relevance tho.

[CNS]

Love the drama about keeping rights from the pubs that all think it great that all our calls and emails can be intercepted without warrants.

I don't think you can say shitting on the fourth amendment is a partisan thing at this point.

I'm not.  I am saying it's silly that we get some life or death breathing story dramatized to relate to the gun debate, but nothing of the sort on privacy.

I still don't really see your point.  Is the left not passionate about certain rights?  Are they not hypocritical when they "dramatize" the issue they're passionate about when they're relatively silent on 4th Amendment issues?

I just find their passion about guns silly when the very reason they say they want to have them is to protect their rights, yet, rights are being stripped away and it just is what it is to them.  I am not condoning violence, but it seems like those who want the ability to prevent the loss of rights, through gun related means, would maybe care about that.  If they don't why is it so important to have the guns?

Also, yes.  Hypocrites are hypocrites regardless of the issue.  Again, it's just silly to me that someone wants the means to protect their rights yet here we are. 

[DQ12]

Fair enough.  That makes sense.  Although I don't think every person advocating for gun rights does so in anticipation of needing a gun to fight the government.

[Dugout DickStone]

Struggling to find the relevance

My point is that I think we are not doing nearly as bad in reducing violence as we are being made to feel like.  I also don't believe that gun control laws are going to meaningfully reduce instances of planned terrorist or crazy person mass violence, so I think we should direct our attention towards reducing terrorists and crazy people trying to shoot (or blow) places up.

Also, gun ownership continues to increase. More guns, and yet less gun crimes. Whether that is causation or correlation doesn't really matter - but it does call into question the demands for "more gun control."

Buy all the revolvers you want.  Literally.  they should and will always to continue to be legal.

Handguns account for like 99% of shootings in the country, so this seems like an odd stance.

Usually between people who know each other.  I doubt those can be prevented short of "don't hang out with people who have lots of handguns or your odds of being shot with a handgun go up"

It is a stance based on compromise.  You should get totally used to it, or you will get a musket.

[Dugout DickStone]

Fair enough.  That makes sense.  Although I don't think every person advocating for gun rights does so in anticipation of needing a gun to fight the government.

Don't tell them that.  they are totally ready to take on uncle sam. 

[CNS]

Fair enough.  That makes sense.  Although I don't think every person advocating for gun rights does so in anticipation of needing a gun to fight the government.

If that isn't the right they are invoking the 2nd amendment for, then they are arguing their point dishonestly.  Nowhere is the right to be a sport hunter or target practice aficionado protected.

[Emo EMAW]

Fair enough.  That makes sense.  Although I don't think every person advocating for gun rights does so in anticipation of needing a gun to fight the government.

If that isn't the right they are invoking the 2nd amendment for, then they are arguing their point dishonestly.  Nowhere is the right to be a sport hunter or target practice aficionado protected.

Not at the federal level, but some states have guaranteed the right to hunt. 

Anyway I see your argument as deflecting.  If you want to talk 4th Amendment start a new thread.

[CNS]

Fair enough.  That makes sense.  Although I don't think every person advocating for gun rights does so in anticipation of needing a gun to fight the government.

If that isn't the right they are invoking the 2nd amendment for, then they are arguing their point dishonestly.  Nowhere is the right to be a sport hunter or target practice aficionado protected.

Not at the federal level, but some states have guaranteed the right to hunt. 

Anyway I see your argument as deflecting.  If you want to talk 4th Amendment start a new thread.

If what I did was deflecting, something like 2/3rds of this thread needs mod attention.

[michigancat]

I would probably be okay with repealing all gun laws if we also repealed the patriot act and any other 4th amendment restrictions.

[michigancat]

Fair enough.  That makes sense.  Although I don't think every person advocating for gun rights does so in anticipation of needing a gun to fight the government.

If that isn't the right they are invoking the 2nd amendment for, then they are arguing their point dishonestly.  Nowhere is the right to be a sport hunter or target practice aficionado protected.

Not at the federal level, but some states have guaranteed the right to hunt. 

Anyway I see your argument as deflecting.  If you want to talk 4th Amendment start a new thread.

he's talking about the bill of rights, which is relevant even if you can't grasp it's relevance.

[CNS]

Welp.

 NYT saying the "woman who helped carry out the shooting....had pledged allegiance to the Islamic state in a facebook posting..."

[Emo EMAW]

Fair enough.  That makes sense.  Although I don't think every person advocating for gun rights does so in anticipation of needing a gun to fight the government.

If that isn't the right they are invoking the 2nd amendment for, then they are arguing their point dishonestly.  Nowhere is the right to be a sport hunter or target practice aficionado protected.

Not at the federal level, but some states have guaranteed the right to hunt. 

Anyway I see your argument as deflecting.  If you want to talk 4th Amendment start a new thread.

he's talking about the bill of rights, which is relevant even if you can't grasp it's relevance.

He said "no where."  I corrected him.  The 10th Amendment protects the rights of the states to do what they see fit.  So it is relevant.

[CNS]

Well, as long as we are protecting the 10th amendment, I am fine with bastardizing the second amendment.  Trap shoot away.

[chuckjames]

Fair enough.  That makes sense.  Although I don't think every person advocating for gun rights does so in anticipation of needing a gun to fight the government.

If that isn't the right they are invoking the 2nd amendment for, then they are arguing their point dishonestly.  Nowhere is the right to be a sport hunter or target practice aficionado protected.

Not at the federal level, but some states have guaranteed the right to hunt. 

Anyway I see your argument as deflecting.  If you want to talk 4th Amendment start a new thread.

he's talking about the bill of rights, which is relevant even if you can't grasp it's relevance.

He said "no where."  I corrected him.  The 10th Amendment protects the rights of the states to do what they see fit.  So it is relevant.

Thank God for the commerce clause!!!

[Emo EMAW]

Not sure CNS knows how the 10th Amendment works. 

[Kat Kid]

Not sure CNS knows how the 10th Amendment works. 

If you pay attention to how it works, 10th amendment is pretty weak.  Even originalists would argue that is how it is in practice today, they just want to change that.