A Challenge To Anyone

Okay so for gun violence as a whole our issue is not a gun issue. It is a black issue. If you change our black population rate to match those of other first world countries with low gun violence rates, our gun violence rates actually perform better than most of theirs. Our problem is we have 13% of our population committing well over 50% of our total violent gun crime. Whereas most of those countries you’re referring to have less than 2% black population. If you extrapolate out their numbers and change their 2% blacks to 13%, their gun violence rates will skyrocket exponentially.

As for mass shootings it is a different animal. Usually a mass shooting occurs because someone has snapped and gone batshit crazy. This is, no doubt, exacerbated by firearm access that we have in the US. However, the risk of it happening is so minuscule and rare that it does not justify the removal of firearms from law abiding citizens who are FAR MORE LIKELY to need to protect themselves against the first group I mentioned as opposed to the second.

 

I agree with most of your post but vehemently disagree that nothing can be done. We can harden our schools without roving guards armed with semi-automatic weapons and body armor.
Schools should have a single secure ingress point. With that one requirement you will eliminate almost all of the school mass shootings, certainly the one in question. Of course, we'd be moving the problem from schools to other venues (malls, parks, etc). So you're right, there isn't a lot that can be done when a wackjob goes nuts but we CAN and should take schools off of the list of viable targets. It would be relatively easy to do.

 

So, what's the common denominator in both ? And remember, we a talking about mass shootings.

 

While you're at it, give me a percentage of the Black population that has actually carried out a mass shooting? I'm asking for a friend.

 

Given Scalia and the opinion he wrote on Heller, it is a defensible argument. What you are doing is ignoring that opinion, or not understanding, or both. There is no unlimited right to any of the rights enumerated in the Constitution. The Supreme Court, and the Founding Fathers, made that clear.

You need to understand what "infringed" actually means legally, Constitutionally, and at the time of the Constitution was written. And that is the problem with your argument.

https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html

Shall not be infringed means, quite literally, at the time of the Constitution, undue burden by the government that the people can and should have the right to own firearms. The NRA has warped the definition politically to suit its political purpose and is really not following Constitutional law and precedent, even the Heller Case. What that means is if there is a minor burden, through the totality of national safety for society, the court, under judicial review, has the authority to limit that right as long as it does not violate other parts of the Constitution or its amendments.

 

For starters, Facebook messages were in a private group. They were not specific at THAT time to notifiy police and there is little chance that any reasonable person would know what would happen if messages like that were posted or the use of their algorithims.

Second, preventing is not the same as eliminating, which means two different standards. Would additional rules have prevented this? Maybe or maybe not. Even with all the rules in place, human error is the X factor here, like the police resource officer not confronting him or the police waiting 40 to 60 minutes before entering and trying to negotiate with him, for instance.

 

No we are not. That’s why I asked you specifically if you wanted me to address mass shootings or just gun violence in general.

And the common denominator in both are violent criminals who are willing to break the law.

You know how we know it’s not the gun? Because if you throw law abiding gun owners in that comparison with violent criminals. They all have guns but only two of them use the guns unlawfully.

Therefore the common denominator is not the gun, it’s the violent criminal willing to break the law.

 

Bullshit justify your position that “shall not be infringed” meant “undue burden by the government”.

Undue burden by the government is IMPLIED by every single amendment. The phrase shall not be infringed is UNIQUE to the second amendment. To assert it simply means the same thing as EVERY other amendment is logically defunct and utterly indefensible.

 

Ok, so the question still remains why does this only happen in this country? I see you still haven't answered my second question.

 

I did answer your question.

If you’re referring to gun violence as a whole it is our disproportionate number of blacks in comparison to those other countries.

If you’re talking about mass shootings I will concur that ease of access is certainly exacerbating the problem.

 

For starters, it is not a black issue, Hispanic issue, caucasian issue, etc, it is a societal issue specifically in the United States. It is why some foreigners view the United States as "the wild, wild, wild west" mentality. And it is also why in some countries where own a firearm is also a right, that they do not have the same gun violent deaths as the United States, especially the Philippines as the closest comparison.

According to FBI statistics, when you look at the offender, White is the predominant group that is committing the violence in raw numbers, with 2854 whites committing the offense nationwide compared to 534 blacks nationwide. When it comes to victims of gun violence, blacks are a lot higher proportionately compared to whites given the offender's race category.

Mass Shootings occur because of a variety of issues and mental health and domestic/international terrorism are the two top categories. You also have gang violence, bar fights, etc. With mass shootings, most are law-abiding citizens before they commit the crime and in some cases with mental health, no one really knows. With the perpetrator in Uvalde, it is unknown if he had mental health. It appears there is evidence he was bullied because of his stutter and lisp while some, like Rep Paul Gosar, tried to inject political drama into the mix.

We have more guns per capita than any other country. We are able to obtain a firearm almost anywhere by anyone for any reason. Not saying that is bad or good, but that is the reality here in the United States, and it is why I went with the gun culture argument, which is what is really propelling the violence in the United States, not the race, ethnicity or politics as a significant reason.

 

Your damn right we refuse to budge an inch on gun law.

 

Read the two links and get back to me.

 

No see your position is false. It is a black problem.

Blacks make up less than 13% of the total population and 6% of them (black males) commit approximately:

55% of the total murder
40% of the total assaults
45% of the total armed robberies
30% of the total forcible rapes and
40% of the total violent arson

If we changed our black population rate to the same thing as say Canadas, our gun violence rate would be almost exactly comparable to Canada’s.

 

If it's the Blacks, why is their gun violence so bad only in America ?
And no , you ran from my question of what percent of the Black population as committed a mass shooting.

 

I’ve read Scalias arguments and I read your hit piece on the second.

But neither addresses the issue we are discussing.

You assert that the phrase “shall not be infringed” simply means that the government cannot put undue burden on the people in regards to the second.

I maintain that is illogical. Why? Let me illustrate why with a question.

If the phrase shall not be infringed actually refers to the fact the government cannot put undue burden on the second… does that mean that because “shall not be infringed” is NOT included in ANY other right in the constitution, that the government has the authority to place undue burdens on EVERY right in the constitution except the second?

 

It’s not. It’s in every first world nation that keeps those statistics. The statistics in Canada were SO bad and SO disproportionate by the blacks in Canada that Canada still keeps the records of violent crime on race but refuses to make them public anymore.

I would assume probably slightly more than the percentage of the white race who has. But that would just be a guess.

 

It has been several days and 243 comments since the origionaL post. If you have a simple plan to help end these please share it with us because it is obvious none of us have one we can agree on.

 

You are manipulating the statistics to fit your argument here. Yes, gun violence deaths impact the victims more in the Black community, a three to 1 compared to whites, but when it comes to the offenders, that is not the story here and disproves your argument.

Do you have any links to those percentages here?

 

What hit piece? For starters, one link is "Findlaw" which is a website written by lawyers for lawyers, the general public, etc. No political bias in the explanations that were provided in the link.

All amendments were written to limit government power on what it can and cannot do because of the fear of a strong central government. At that time, the way the Constitution was written, the argument against the Federalists was a strong central government with another King George III coming into power. That was their biggest fear and why the first ten amendments were passed. The second amendment limits government power and does not eliminate government power on what it can and cannot do.

 

You didn’t answer the question.

if shall not be infringed means what you say it means… then one of two things must be true.

Either A) They meant that the ONLY right which the government is not allowed to put undue burdens on is the second.

OR

B) They simply included it with the second in a superfluous manner and it wasn’t needed.

But you and I both know NOTHING in the constitution is superfluous.

Which means either our government can put undue burdens on all of our rights except the second or your interpretation of the phrase “shall not be infringed” is false.

 

I do yes.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/table-43

 

Although shall not be infringed is specifically linked to the second amendment, it does not negate the fact that other parts of the Constitution and its amendments are only implied by the second. Shall not be infringed comes after the comma for the right to bear arms. That comma is the argument and it implies to both the militia, and the right to keep and bear arms. Or in other words, the shall not be infringed specifically means that Congress cannot place any undue burden limits despite the necessary and proper clause or the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

In the early days of the Republic, the first few Supreme Court Cases of the 2a involved the militias aspect. There was a huge debate on who can organize a militia. Since Congress has the authority to raise an army written in Article 1, Section 8, with the states wanting to organize their own militias as well, the cases involved who has the right to organize. Eventually, the Supreme Court ruled both, not one or the other. Arguments include that militias are not an army and that the Constitution supersedes the amendments, both of which were rejected by the Supreme Court, especially the Madison Supreme Court.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-ii/interps/99

https://www.aei.org/articles/what-does-the-second-amendment-mean/

 

First of all you’re essentially arguing that the phrase “shall not be infringed” is superfluous and not necessary because that protection is conferred upon all rights. There is not a legitimate constitutional scholar on the planet who will assert anything in the constitution is superfluous.

Second of all, you’re doing what most people do when they read the second and you’re reading it incorrectly. If the founders were to write the second in todays vernacular it would be written as such:

“BECAUSE a militia is necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The founders were essentially creating an if, then argument. They were stating “IF it is true that a militia is necessary for the security of a free state THEN the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The argument was that the only thing that can guarantee the safety of the people from an oppressive tyranny is themselves. If that assertion is true then the people must have the right and ability to maintain arms sufficient enough and in good enough working order that they can properly defend themselves against a tyrannical government.

That is the ENTIRE POINT of the second amendment. It’s not so you can hunt it’s not so you can shoot a robber. The SOLE and ENTIRE purpose of the second amendment is to GUARANTEE the people have the ability to defend themselves in the worst case scenario where their government has been usurped by tyranny.

 

For starters, thank you for the link.

Second, if you look at the link with your statistics, for homicide, total arrests are 44.1% whites and 53.3% blacks. However, arrests and convictions, of offenders, are not the same. And mine dealt with the offender.

Furthermore, supplemental data shows why homicides occur. From the FBI source page

• Circumstances were known for 61.0 percent of murders for which supplementary details were reported in 2018. Of those, 39.4 percent of victims were murdered during arguments. Felony-type murders (i.e., murders that occurred in conjunction with the commission of another felony crime such as rape, robbery, burglary, etc.) accounted for 24.5 percent of homicides for which circumstances were known
  
• In 2018, 27.8 percent of homicide victims were killed by someone they knew other than family members (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.), 12.8 percent were slain by family members, and 9.9 percent were killed by strangers. The relationship between murder victims and offenders was unknown in 49.5 percent of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter incidents.
  
• When the race of the offender was known, 54.9 percent were Black or African American, 42.4 percent were White, and 2.7 percent were of other races. The race was unknown for 4,821 offenders.

I think this gives perspective to the data and does not make the data that it is a "black problem" as you say.