Mass Killings at Virginia Walmart

In this case he's referring to natural law theory.
As you're certainly aware.

 

So what should be changed?

 

By law the firearms in one’s possession must be itemized on the individual’s license. The way I read your law, if one has firearms not itemized by serial number on the license those firearms are illegal and the licensee would be in violation. It’s my understanding a person with a license can’t just have a bunch of guns not listed on their license. Am I misunderstanding the requirement that all owned rifles and shotguns must be itemized on the license?

Yes, local administration of law is much preferable. It’s why our sheriffs are set up similarly. On average it’s for the best except when personal bias against individuals creeps in. Still better than top down approach with outsiders trying to govern people they don’t and can’t understand or identify with. This is why I support our founding principles of federalism and state’s rights.

Californians can enjoy firearm restrictions with very high mass shooting rates and my state can enjoy firearm ownership with lower mass shooting and homicide rates. And very similar firearm violence rates even though Nebraska has much higher ownership rates and access to many firearms Californians don’t.

I believe the fact states/areas like mine with firearms freedoms and low crime rates is more evidence of the advantage of avoiding one size fits all government mandates.

The problem is you had the same frequency of mass shootings when firearm law was much more permissive. Increases in regulation have not effected the occurrence of such events. When you had semiautomatics and handguns we saw the same rate of mass shootings. I’m not sure how success can be measured when there is no change in incidence, only change from unlicensed to licensed perpetrators.

Licensing actually predates all your mass shootings, so logically a better argument could be made that licensing has a more causal effect on perpetration than prevention in the UK. Of course I would not make that argument as no direct causal link can be identified, I’m simply pointing out the correlation is the exact opposite of what we are led to believe. Essentially there is no evidence (not even correlative) that increasing firearm regulations in the UK has decreased or prevented mass shootings. Quite the opposite if correlation is our evidence of choice.

There is widespread firearm ownership based on support for the Second Amendment in the US. I know of nobody who owns firearms because they mis-trust local law enforcement. Perhaps some racial based groups may mistrust local law, but the vast majority of ownership is based on mistrust of federal government. We mis-trust federal governments, and yes it is justified. History is rife with justification in this country’s history and in world history.

All massive increases in firearm purchase rates in the US are correlated with actual or threatened government overreach. Mostly federal, although some state government actions during Covid prompted new ownership. None of it was because people mistrusted local law enforcement.

Of course we have a choice. Our rights and freedoms do not cause mass shootings. Consider California with a history of strict firearms law. They have the second highest per capita rate of mass shootings, second only to Colorado. There is much more freedom and exercising of rights in my state, yet lower rates of mass shootings. New Jersey has some of the tightest controls on firearms in the nation, yet homicide mortality is lower in my state where children own firearms.

A good conversation. I’m learning bits about your laws I didn’t previously understand.

 

I'll have a third try.

What 'entity?'

 

I leave whenever I want to. What are you babbling about?

 

I don't know what he is referring to as he is dodging answering. I came last in reading minds.

 

Our Constitution doesn’t create our rights. It protects them from government. Citizens of our respective countries have the same rights, we’ve just chosen to exercise more rights here.
^ this line by 557 is perfectly explanatory if you're a person that has a basic understanding of the subject.

I would pose that if you cannot suss out what he's talking about from this sentence and liken it to reading minds, that you simply refrain from holding a strong opinion on this issue until you're able to better understand.

For example: I've basically given you a spoiler and you could've understood the post by now and moved on. But here we are.

 

One question, and this is an honest question I don't know the answer.

Have incidents of mass shootings in the US risen or fallen in the last 25 years?

 

It is unwise to presume what another has in their mind, so I'll wait until 557 explains what he is referring to.

 

I'll ask Paul about this.
I don't know the answer, I've never held or applied for a licence.

It's possible that I have misremembered and Paul took his guns to a registered dealer for safe keeping while he rectified his error.

I'll get back to you on that.

 

I can’t decide that for you or the Australian Government or the United Nations. Here is what the Australian Constitution references.

The first mention of human rights in US founding documents reads:

If you ask a Jew, a Christian, a Buddhist, and a secular humanist your question you will get different answers. That’s not the point. The definitive point here is that human rights DO NOT come from government. The governments in question in our discussion DO NOT take credit for creation of rights and all clearly state such rights are innate and endowed by some other entity.

That entity IS NOT government. That is all that matters here. I’m not interested in strawman arguments. Sorry.

 

Its not a presumption. The sentence quoted clearly signposts the essentially concepts of natural law.
I refuse to believe you were not taught this concept in primary school.

 

I would love to hear his take. I have come to trust your posts are in good faith and trust your conveyance of Paul’s thoughts as well.

I haven’t applied for a license either— you are in good company! LOL

 

They have gone up, way up. On the other hand, shootings in general have gone way down (until Covid). There are lots of conclusions that one can draw from this data and I won't pretend to say one is wrong and one is right. What I do know is that the more focus we have on mass shootings, the more mass shootings that we have. This started with the hype over scary guns (AR-15s) started by Newsweek and Time. Interestingly enough, Newsweek did a story about just that and said that 13 days was the magical time frame where you can expect a copycat mass shooting.

As far as those comparing the gun culture of the US with the UK (or other Western nations), try to imagine what would the murder rate of the UK be if you dropped it into South America or Africa.

In general, until people want to address these problems as a whole, including the media and the culture, then there will be no change.

 

The incidence of mass shootings in the US began to increase statistically significantly around 2012.

The percentage of households with firearms has been steady (neither increasing or decreasing significantly) since the 1970’s.

Laws attempting to curtail mass shootings, including many state magazine bans and “assault weapons” bans/controls have increased alongside increases in shootings. Similar to the explosion of the firearm homicide rate in the US following the 1968 laws. Here is a bit on that where I attempted to make the point correlations are misreported and misunderstood.

 

Oh for sure the media makes things worse with their mawkish and over enthusiastic coverage of mass shootings.
The Dead Kennedys wrote a song about it some 40 years ago and it's only got worse.


''I wanna be a king for a day''

 

That’s effed up!

 

Jello Biafra's poetry doesn't get the recognition it deserves.

 

Not even those vacationing in Cambodia!

 

557, you posted....and this is you, not a strawman....

My question is....fourth try......what does create those rights, and how does that mean that I have the same rights you have, down here?

 

'Natural law?' Where can I find this notion you call 'natural law?' It does not, to my knowledge, exist down here.

 

that means nothing. also worthless are those who try to undermine the Bill of Rights by claiming "natural law" or Natural rights do not exist. that is not an argument that has any merit when it comes to interpreting our billow rights and our constitution. what matters is that the men who drafted and enacted our Constitution and our Bill of Rights clearly believed in these natural rights and natural law and that has a very important role in what the second amendment and other parts of the BoR means

 

Please list these natural rights, and show me where I can verify what you say.

 

well the one in question is the natural right of self defense. any lawyer knows that.

 

LOL. Boulder high school must have been hell for him. I believe those lyrics would trigger many red flag laws in a strange twist of irony.