Another mass shooting in the U.S

wonderfullife

Manic Moran wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the Irish War of Independence was won by the Irish citizenry without firearms, or with firearms against something less than a first-rate military of the period?

The Cheyenne with their bows vs the US Army and their repeating rifles had about as much chance of success as did the Aztecs with their spears against the Spanish and their muskets, or the Irish with their pikes against the muskets of the British Army.

However, Libyan citizens with repeating rifles and home-made MRLs seemed to do well enough against the military with tanks and helicopters, the Syrian citizenry seems to be holding its own, and even the Afghan and Iraqi militias have been able to keep the US military quite busy for a few years, despite their not having a single tank, fighter jet or howitzer to their names. The premise is fine, as long as one reads the Amendment as to cover modern personal military arms in common use.

And that's only part of the problem. It was fairly hard for the British Army in Ireland in 1868 to determine who was an enemy to be killed vs who was a peaceful citizen to be generally left alone, unless they were actively in engaged at the time. Otherwise, they could mingle with the population. The American Indians, however, had no such option and the US government wasn't anywhere near as considerate as the British were. A Sioux could not hide amongst the population when he wasn't militarily engaged, and they were pretty easy to find and kill in open country.

Your language analogy also has a hole in it. Asking if a white American in, say, Flagstaff, learns Navajo is about the same as asking if an Englishman in London learns Irish. A Navajo on their own land does learn their language, as an Irishman learns Irish in Ireland. Note, 'their own land', and it's not just property ownership. The Indians seems to have put up sufficient of a fight that they have always retained far more sovereignty than the Irish ever had prior to the 1920s. Even today, States have no jurisdiction at all over the Indian reservations located within their borders, and Federal application (even the rights of the US Constitution) is somewhat limited. (The specifics of relations between Indians and the Federal Government is quite complicated, and rather interesting)

The above is all an aside, however.

I will agree with you that the use of arms against the Federal government is the least likely of all possible scenarios, after personal/communal defence, and even defense against external aggression. That does not, however, make it a dead letter. Quoting (now) Chief Justice Kozinski of the 9th Circuit, who still speaks with his Romanian accent: The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed-where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

I've been on Indian Reservations in California and pretty much noticed no difference between them and anywhere else. All the laws and regulations seemed similar. Ok, mind you, it was a casino type resort.

You make a lot of unfair and misleading comparisons. The peoples of Libya and Syria are/were fighting oppressive regimes and are/were flooded full of weapons by the US and Russia at some point in the recent history of the area. This is not comparable to a nation such as the USA whose last internal civil war was many moons ago.

Not to mention the fragmented armies of Libya and Syria, the terrain upon which they are fighting, the levels of poverty and hardship in both nations. People with a cause, fighting for something, generally put up a good fight.

None of which will ever apply to America. Black people in America were oppressed for generations, would you have agreed with their right to equip themselves and attempt to 'overthrow' the Government? Why didn't black communities just arm themselves to the teeth and go around shooting up white people?

Bottom line, there are many countries on this earth where Government oppression, torture, human rights violations occur on an endemic level. In those countries i MIGHT be open to the idea of militias - the USA is not now, nor never will be, one of those countries. It's just an anachronistic nonsense reason, among many, to want to own a gun.

MadsL

wonderfullife wrote: »

I've been on Indian Reservations in California and pretty much noticed no difference between them and anywhere else. All the laws and regulations seemed similar. Ok, mind you, it was a casino type resort.

You would be suprised at how different laws can be. I was at a Native American's friend's house during a feast day, and we went over to watch the dances and the "clowns" - the clowns do a sort of security duty during the feast as well as climbing greased poles. A stupid woman brought her iPad along and it was spotted and grabbed frm her bag, despite very clear warnings about photography being strictly prohibited. The clowns seized it, did a hysterically funny "monkey" routine as if they did not know what it was, and it was not seen again. Now in the US that would be illegal search and seizure but good luck trying to apply that to a reservation, especially on a feast day.

None of which will ever apply to America. Black people in America were oppressed for generations, would you have agreed with their right to equip themselves and attempt to 'overthrow' the Government? Why didn't black communities just arm themselves to the teeth and go around shooting up white people?

You never heard of the Black Panthers? The right to arm themselves and police voting stations to protect black people from intimidation when voting was a big part of the whole resurgence of the 2nd Amendment rights movement.

The Black Panthers uniform of blue shirts, black pants, black leather jackets, black berets, and openly displayed loaded shotguns. (In his studies, Newton had discovered a California law that allowed carrying a loaded rifle or shotgun in public, as long as it was publicly displayed and pointed at no one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party

So, yes, the Black Power movement certainly used a militia in a peaceful manner to protect civil rights.

Bottom line, there are many countries on this earth where Government oppression, torture, human rights violations occur on an endemic level. In those countries i MIGHT be open to the idea of militias - the USA is not now, nor never will be, one of those countries. It's just an anachronistic nonsense reason, among many, to want to own a gun.

And yet I just gave an example where they were used, within living memory, to protect US citizens civil rights.

Manic Moran

wonderfullife wrote: »

I've been on Indian Reservations in California and pretty much noticed no difference between them and anywhere else. All the laws and regulations seemed similar. Ok, mind you, it was a casino type resort.

Unless you run afoul of them, you probably won't notice. The day to day running is going to be similar (except for the casinos you were in to begin with: They're not legal in California, only cardrooms are, but California has no say over what Indians do on their land). The laws in the US and Ireland are similar enough that you won't notice either, but obviously the US doesn't have much say on what goes on in Ireland.

You make a lot of unfair and misleading comparisons. The peoples of Libya and Syria are/were fighting oppressive regimes and are/were flooded full of weapons by the US and Russia at some point in the recent history of the area. This is not comparable to a nation such as the USA whose last internal civil war was many moons ago.

We're already flooded with weapons in the US, as many people have noted, we don't need assistance from anyone else for that!

Not to mention the fragmented armies of Libya and Syria, the terrain upon which they are fighting, the levels of poverty and hardship in both nations. People with a cause, fighting for something, generally put up a good fight.

Isn't that kindof the point of this argument, though? I don't think anyone is reasonably suggesting that the 2nd exists so that the people can take up arms because they don't like Obamacare or have some other mild grievance. It is, as I re-quote, "for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed-where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees." The armies of Libya and Syria were fragmented as much because they were fighting their own people as that the individual soldiers weren't entirely convinced of the 'rightness' of their government. Why would this not also be the case in the US military?

None of which will ever apply to America. Black people in America were oppressed for generations, would you have agreed with their right to equip themselves and attempt to 'overthrow' the Government? Why didn't black communities just arm themselves to the teeth and go around shooting up white people?

They weren't allowed to have guns, but the white folk were. It is interesting you make that argument, because it is precisely a reason that the 14th Amendment was created, and why it was held to incorporate against the States in the 19th century. The big argument was "If this applies to everyone, then black folk can have guns." The courts said 'Good. Maybe this means they won't be as easily enslaved again next time.'

Of course, that didn't stop the passage of various Jim Crow laws with the intent of disarming non-white folk by use of legal manipulation. The law here in California, for example, requiring a subjective and unreviewable 'determination of good cause' before issuing a carry permit was done because the Sheriff could decide that proper 'good cause' was being a white person without being prima facie unConstitutional. This law, incidently, remains on the books, and is now being challenged.
A different law prohibiting the open carriage of loaded weapons in CA was passed in the late 1960s after the Black Panthers visited the State Legislature armed. Whether or not this prohibition was actually legal is now being decided by the court system as a corollary to the concealed weapons question.

In any case, yes, guns (or the denial thereof) and oppression of blacks are certainly linked in US history.

NTM

aloyisious

What more can one say about how stupid some "adults" can be. Five-year-old boy accidentally shoot's and kill's his two-year-old sister with a .22 rifle he got as a present when he was four. Who, in their right mind, would give a four-year-old child a present of a .22 rifle?

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/americas/fiveyearold-child-kills-sister-with-gun-he-received-as-a-present-29244891.html

http://www.mommyish.com/2013/05/03/5-year-old-kills-sister-with-rifles-for-kids-crickett/

Manic Moran

aloyisious wrote: »

What more can one say about how stupid some "adults" can be. Five-year-old boy accidentally shoot's and kill's his two-year-old sister with a .22 rifle he got as a present when he was four. Who, in their right mind, would give a four-year-old child a present of a .22 rifle?

You may wish to check in over here.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056939350

o1s1n

These thread titles really need to have a date included. Every time I see it pop up on the front page I think it's another one :eek:

My name is URL

o1s1n wrote: »

These thread titles really need to have a date included. Every time I see it pop up on the front page I think it's another one :eek:

http://rt.com/usa/new-orleans-parade-shooting-179/

12 shot, including 10yo child during Mother’s Day parade in New Orleans

My name is URL

My name is URL wrote: »

http://rt.com/usa/new-orleans-parade-shooting-179/

Maybe we should create a sticky !

MadYaker

Jesus, I hope they all survive.

St.Spodo

I'm so happy we have gun laws in this country that are more conducive to not having your head blown off by some weirdo than the American laws.

FouxDaFaFa

It's a pretty sad state of affairs when a Mother's Day parade isn't even safe.

briany

St.Spodo wrote: »

I'm so happy we have gun laws in this country that are more conducive to not having your head blown off by some weirdo than the American laws.

American gun laws and American gun culture has their bed pretty much made.
Mass shootings there aren't really news, they're just a fact of life, it would seem, a danger that must be considered every day. If you're paddling near the beach in Australia, watch out for box jellyfish. If you're paddling near the beach in America, watch out for white vans (with a sniper muzzle sticking out of a hatch in the side).

Manic Moran

Police are looking for three suspects. I am more immediately inclined to think deliberate criminal activity than lone shooter.

FouxDaFaFa

Manic Moran wrote: »

Police are looking for three suspects. I am more immediately inclined to think deliberate criminal activity than lone shooter.

Yeah, it could have been a case of two parties with a grudge both finding themselves at the same event. If so, it seems like they didn't give a crap about people getting caught in the crossfire.

Edit: the above seems to be the case. The "second line" in the quote is an impromptu parade/celebration, like a block party.

Reddit user TheRealTroyMcClure:
It's New Orleans. Same thing happens during Mardi Gras, etc. A second line like this in the 7th Ward is just a venue--everyone in your neighborhood will be at it. So if you've got a beef with someone, you know they'll be there and you can "settle it." It's also public and a crowd--get in, shoot, then escape in the chaos. It doesn't happen at EVERY parade, or even at the majority of them. It's really only a small number. However, it's sadly a common enough occurrence that it's not shocking when it does.

Vine of the parade with shots heard at the end.

Reddit user delete_my_account:
The thing about this is that it's different than the other mass shooting events in that this kind of sh1t happens constantly in New Orleans and the news hardly mentions it. It's a terrible thing, but far from unexpected here.

For example, about a month ago there was a newly stationed Americorps member shot and killed in Hollygrove, and since then there have been numerous other deadly shootings. It's a terrible reality of life here, not a unique and unpredictable event carried out by a lone psycho. This kind of fcuked up sh1t is just how it is.

I've been lucky to have lived here for two years and not encountered any of it first-hand but it happens all around me every day.

StinkyMunkey

As the father of one victim of a mass shooting said "it's a pity people put thier passion for guns before thier passion for life".

For me (just my opinion) if I lost the right to bear arms would mean it could save one life, I'd happily give up that right.

America is to steeped in gun culture, and will unfortunalty never change. Anyone wishing to change the laws will always be blocked. Lets face it, it's a billion dollar industry.

It's just simple maths really, more guns = more possibility for more gun deaths. Just like more cars on the road = more possibility for more road deaths or more drugs on the streets = the possibility for more drug deaths.

As people have said, mass shootings have become pretty regular and will continue to be so. I just feel sorry for the poor feckers who get caught in the middle of it.

MadsL

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

As the father of one victim of a mass shooting said "it's a pity people put thier passion for guns before thier passion for life".

Because those that didn't shoot anyone are the ones responsible?

For me (just my opinion) if I lost the right to bear arms would mean it could save one life, I'd happily give up that right.

Do you drive? Could your car kill someone? Best sell it, after all one life could be saved.

America is to steeped in gun culture, and will unfortunalty never change. Anyone wishing to change the laws will always be blocked. Lets face it, it's a billion dollar industry.

It's a culture that meant a friend of mine avoided being raped.

It's just simple maths really, more guns = more possibility for more gun deaths. Just like more cars on the road = more possibility for more road deaths or more drugs on the streets = the possibility for more drug deaths.

What a circular argument - more people more possibility for death. At the absurd level you are arguing more candy = more possibility for diabetes deaths.

As people have said, mass shootings have become pretty regular and will continue to be so. I just feel sorry for the poor feckers who get caught in the middle of it.

As do gun owners. Unfortunately, as at Aurora, being law-abiding they are often prevented from intervening to prevent more deaths when caught in the middle of it.

StinkyMunkey

MadsL wrote: »

Because those that didn't shoot anyone are the ones responsible?

im sure he meant the reluctance to change, not banning guns



Do you drive? Could your car kill someone? Best sell it, after all one life could be saved.


breathing is killing me too, guess ill give that up as well, thanks for the heads up

It's a culture that meant a friend of mine avoided being raped.

i know, I've seen you type it in every thread that mentions a gun



What a circular argument - more people more possibility for death. At the absurd level you are arguing more candy = more possibility for diabetes deaths.

thanks for making my point for me, your right eating more candy does increase your chances of diabetes, sorry I didn't think of that.



As do gun owners. Unfortunately, as at Aurora, being law-abiding they are often prevented from intervening to prevent more deaths when caught in the middle of it.

i agree, arm more 5yr olds what could go wrong. America will have more guns, and guns death will go up, I'm not worried tbh, I don't live there.

Have at it my friend, enjoy your guns. You like your culture, ill stick to mine

MadsL

So i see you are not prepared to give up your car to save lives. How selfish. It could save a life.

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Have at it my friend, enjoy your guns. You like your culture, ill stick to mine

Running around in quasi-militaristic style shooting at people? Or airsoft/paintball as you call it.

Manic Moran

For me (just my opinion) if I lost the right to bear arms would mean it could save one life, I'd happily give up that right.

The problem is, the right to bear arms could save one life. The user's.

LiamMc

Manic Moran wrote: »

The problem is, the right to bear arms could save one life. The user's.

As you write, The right to bear arms is a problem.
So many deaths to protect bureaucratic decisions. Changing a bureaucratic decision protects many, many people.

Sparks

LiamMc wrote: »

As you write, The right to bear arms is a problem.

Do you not get mental whiplash from doing that?

So many deaths to protect bureaucratic decisions. Changing a bureaucratic decision protects many, many people.

Bureaucratic decisions like allowing free speech (and all those how-to-commit-suicide sites and how-to-build-a-bomb sites on the internet); due process (and all those people who might have been saved had we been able to torture suspects for information); equality under the law (all those lives we could have saved if we'd just allowed racial profiling) and habeas corpus.

Or, for more mundane examples, the decision to not require people to have 120kph speed limiters in their car by law. Or to require people to resit their driving test every year. Or to require people to get a licence and training before having children. Or to allow people to go through life without regular psychological testing to spot homicidal maniacs with driving licences or working with kids or with wives or whatever.

I mean, we could save so many lives, why aren't we doing these things?

StinkyMunkey

MadsL wrote: »

So i see you are not prepared to give up your car to save lives. How selfish. It could save a life.



Running around in quasi-militaristic style shooting at people? Or airsoft/paintball as you call it.

Think ill give up eating as well that's killing me. Why not just give up everything that has to possibility to kill us. After all they are designing cars to be more lethal, think ill go add some more mini guns to my car, just in case someone decides to try rob my madman style spikes off the car.

Sparks

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Think ill give up eating as well that's killing me.

It is. We should introduce a fat tax to prevent that (let's ignore the point that the one time they tried it, they gave up because it didn't work because that's just too much for my ironymeter).

Why not just give up everything that has to possibility to kill us.

Are you arguing that we shouldn't just ban everything just because it might, if abused, kill someone?

GalwayGuy2

stating that it failed to change Danes' eating habits, it had encouraged cross border trading, put Danish jobs at risk and had been a bureaucratic nightmare for producers and outlets

Just from the above wikipedia link. Tbh, while I don't agree with Fat Taxes, I think the part in bold bothered them more, and it would take a lot longer than a year to create a norm.

MadsL

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Think ill give up eating as well that's killing me. Why not just give up everything that has to possibility to kill us. After all they are designing cars to be more lethal, think ill go add some more mini guns to my car, just in case someone decides to try rob my madman style spikes off the car.

Wait a second. A moment ago you were suggesting gun owners should give up their guns because it might save one life, you no longer driving has the the same potential saving of one life. If you would give up guns in a heartbeat, why not give up your car? Please post the ad of you selling it.

donvito99

According to this

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

there were 33,600 deaths by car and 31,000 deaths by 2nd amendment last year.

Now I'm not sure what to make of these figures anymore, but I am surprised at the almost identical death rates. It's all very well to say food'll kill ya, and your car has just as good a chance at doing the very same, but I don't need an amendment to the constitution to tell me I have a right to eat, or a right to move freely about the place (well, enumerated rights at least).

Cars and guns, while deadly weapons in the hands of certain people, just cannot be compared. Tongue in cheek or not.

LowKeyReturn

All gun deaths would be avoided if everyone had guns. :pac:

Sparks

donvito99 wrote: »

Cars and guns, while deadly weapons in the hands of certain people, just cannot be compared.

Not when you ignore the breakdown of the figures, certainly. The 2010 CDC figures (table 10) show that you have ~35,000 car-related deaths, all accidental (suicides are tallied seperately). They show ~600 gun-related deaths in the accidental tally. The ~30,000 figure you're comparing to the accidental car death figure is made up of all suicides (~19,000) and homicides (~11,000).

So if you want to do a real comparison, you need to fill in the following table:

|Cars|Guns
Accident|35,332|606
Homicide|? (but < 5,181)|11,078
Suicide|? (but < 18,972)|19,392

(We say <5181 for homicide by car because that's the total of all other non-gun homicides; and <18972 for car suicides because that's the total of all non-gun suicides. It's much more likely to be much, much less than those totals.)

With that comparison, you can see that the only category that can be said to be caused directly by mere possession of a firearm (the accident category) clearly says we should ban cars (especially as about half of those accidental car deaths were people who weren't in the car at the time of the accident - pedestrians and so forth) and that guns just aren't a problem worth drafting new legislation and amending a constitution for, not when nearly five times more people died (2,790) from malnutrition and if we just restrict ourselves to looking at other causes of accidental deaths for comparison, falls killed ~22,000 people, accidental poisoning ~33,000 people and "miscellaneous" accidents came to ~17,000.


Homicide and Suicide deaths aren't directly caused by mere possession of a firearm; both require conscious decisions to use that firearm to commit a crime or an act of self-destruction. The latter requires an effective mental healthcare system to prevent (removing guns just sees what we see in the EU - we don't use guns for suicide as often as the US, but we see more suicides in total, not less); and the former is a law enforcement and social issue, especially as 60% or more of it is down to gangs (according to the US Department of Justice).

All that table shows is that guns are designed and used to kill.

An accident is unintentional. Homicide and suicide are intentional.

Sparks

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

All that table shows is that guns are designed and used to kill.

The table does not show the former. You could add columns to that table for everything from knives to hot dogs; it wouldn't show that they were designed to kill. As to the latter, that's a fairly information-free statement.