States with Weak Gun Laws and Higher Gun Ownership Lead Nation in Gun Deaths

That right doesn't exist as you think is does.

Who is "we", how is that risk measured, what statistics are you us8ng, and does this meet due process requirements?

 

we are not at liberty to say who we are, but we have a very particular set of skills, skills acquired over a very long career.

a profile is compiled using medical history from doctors, computer history and searches, and using algorithms we can predict with a high degree of certainty who will be violent just as a business can predict what will be sold..

prior restraint of the second amendment for certain individuals flagged on this list is how we protect the public's inalienable right to life.

 

Minority Report. Basically give no due process. Some people are more equal than others.

 

And yet this mindset is not applied evenly. For whatever reason, this mindset that prior restraint is only an apparent necessity when it pertains to access to firearms.

The united states system of law requires evidence of wrongdoing being committed for constitutional rights to be terminated for a particular individual. Simply being believed to be at a higher risk of becoming violent than any other random member of the public, is not sufficient grounds. If such were to ever be the case, it would be later used as justification for imprisoning members of the public who are minorities, based on what would be called scientific evidence about minorities being more likely to commit various crimes than others.

 

What percentage amounts to a high degree of certainty in this matter? Is there a round number that can readily be cited to conclusively prove that you are not merely guessing? What are the mechanics that allows your algorithm to be any more reliable than randomly picking names out of a phone book, or throwing darts at a board and seeing where they land?

There have been efforts to construct an accurate profile of which individuals may become mass shooters. But the profile is so inclusive of so many, it is completely worthless in any legitimate crime preventative usage.

 

Then explain why Japan has a higher suicide rate than we do.

 

the problem is-since many left-wingers use gun control to punish people who vote for conservative candidates-you will claim that is anyone who wants to own a gun

- - - Updated - - -

I call BS on that given I was a federal prosecutor for 24 years. And I hope that if you try to strip them of their rights without probable cause and an opportunity to be heard, they resist.

 

the mechanics of the algorithm are based on pattern recognition, for example when stop and frisk was used in bad neighborhoods it prevented violent crime.

we can profile the thoughts of people by their actions, and take rights away from people of certain groups the same way as stop and frisk did on the street.

it is not completely accurate, but the odds of it working justify taking freedom from some who are a high security risk to protect many.

 

The answer is absolutely nothing. The word “inalienable” means: “not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated.” “Unalienable” is merely its synonym, and you will find the two words used interchangeably in the legal community.

I have no desire to be the grammar nanny here, but I have generally found that understanding the words is key to their proper application, and you did ask….

I believe this is a false argument to equate the RKBA with an infringement on the right to life. The RKBA is a right of peaceful possession. The irony of your argument is the RKBA itself is merely a component of the very right you claim it threatens. The RKBA is a component of the natural right of self-defense, which in turn is a component of natural right of self-preservation, which is the very definition of the right to life. This is not a new or novel concept. See, for example:

“And indeed, gentlemen, there exists a law, not written down anywhere but written in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading but by derivation and absorption and adoption from nature itself; a law which has come to us not by theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right. When weapons reduce them to silence, the laws no longer expect one to await their pronouncements. For people who decide to wait for these will have to wait for justice, too--and meanwhile they must suffer injustice first. Indeed, even the wisdom of the law itself, by a sort of tacit implication, permits self- defense, because it does not actually forbid men to kill; what it does, instead, is to forbid the bearing of a weapon with the intention to kill. When, therefore, an inquiry passes beyond the mere question of the weapon and starts to consider the motive, a man who has used arms in self-defense is not regarded as having carried them with homicidal aim.” Cicero , Selected Political Speeches, p. 222 (M. Grant, trans. 1975)

The RKBA is not, and never has been, construed to be a right to commit private violence against your fellow citizens absent the justification of defense of self or defense of others (and, in some states, defense of property). Therefore, merely because violent criminal conduct can occur while one is armed does not bring that conduct within either the protection or justification of the RKBA.

As an analogy, consider that assaults, woundings, and murders are no more protected by the RKBA than incitement to riot, libel, and slander are protected forms of free speech. In this sense recognizing the RKBA is no more a threat to life than recognizing free speech is a threat to community peace and order.

In addition, I know you were trying to draw a distinction between the RKBA and the right to life, and that you wish to set the RKBA below it in your hierarchy of rights, but the words “inalienable” and “unalienable” really do mean the same thing….

What is the proof that the presence of the firearm increases the chance of violence—that I become more likely to engage in any form of violence because I have a firearm?

I see absolutely none offered.

The better argument you could make is being armed with a firearm makes it far easier for me to engage in potentially lethal violence should I choose to do so, but it is a particularly poor overreach to suggest that I am more likely to abandon otherwise peaceful behavior and engage in any violent conduct, whether lethal or not, merely because of the presence of a firearm.

Very well then. How broadly would you define the RKBA recognized in the 2nd Amendment?

 

Although it is almost a quote of Spock's last words to Kirk before he died and they shot him out to be reborn....

This was the very argument used to justify denying the RKBA to African American slaves....

This was the very argument used to justify denying the RKBA to Native Americans as they were forced to migrate to the "reservations"....

This was the very argument used to justify denying the RKBA to and the mass internment of Americans of Japanese ancestry during WWII....

 

What you suggest is more dangerous than firearms in the hands of violent people.

 

Pattern recognition of what precisely? What key factor or factors are being typified and codified into what is being classified as a pattern?

The above statement is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty. Whether or not that dishonesty is intentional on the part of yourself has yet to be determined. The united states news media is filled with numerous accounts of just how ineffective the stop and frisk program proved to be in the state of New York.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/new-analysis-shows-just-how-ineffective

http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/14/stop-and-frisk-new-york-conviction-rate

https://www.theatlantic.com/nationa...p-and-frisk-didnt-make-new-york-safer/359666/

Beyond such facts, the comparison does not even begin to pass merit. You speak of an algorithm that allows for a high degree of certainty in determinations of who is more likely to be violent. Yet the basis that was used by police officers in the state of New York was so vague as to be utterly meaningless. Combined with complete ineffectiveness, and leading to so few arrests for any offense, the cited policy was a failure that violated the fourth amendment rights of millions of people for no legitimate reason.

Demonstrate such. Show an example of what thoughts are tied to what random, everyday actions by any given individual. What are the thoughts of someone who polishes their shoes in a clockwise motion as opposed to a counterclockwise motion?

Except for the fact that the justice system in the united states does not allow for such. Rights cannot be taken away from someone without the use of due process. Someone must not only be convicted of a crime in a court of law, but they must also be provided the opportunity to defend themselves against the accusations.

Which does not, in any way, even attempt to answer the question that was presented to you. Therefore it will be presented again. And it will continue being presented until an actual answer, a numerical answer, is given.

What percentage amounts to a high degree of certainty in this matter? Is there a round number that can readily be cited to conclusively prove that you are not merely guessing? What are the mechanics that allows your algorithm to be any more reliable than randomly picking names out of a phone book, or throwing darts at a board and seeing where they land?

 

Prior restraint is unacceptable to a free society.
It also violates the constitution.

 

A point I have made repeatedly here in the past. And one that can not be denied.....unless you use alternative facts. Lol

 

Of course a claim based on guessing instead of facts. You cannot know how many guns are in those states.

 

The raw numbers indicate otherwise. When one looks at the numbers themselves, rather than the supposedly more accurate rates, the state of California is leading the united states in the number of firearm-related deaths, despite its strict restrictions and regulations pertaining to firearms.

 

Its called per capita data and anyone with a very basic understanding of science gets this. California has the most auto deaths in the nation .....are they the worst drivers? Lol

 

You and others are free to call it whatever you wish to, but how it is known is of no relevance. Nothing changes the fact that you are attempting to argue that the state of California, with more firearm-related deaths than any other state in the entire united states, is still safer than any other state with significantly lower firearm-related deaths.

The state of California is continually attempting to enact newer, and more restrictive regulations pertaining to firearms. What is their justification for such endeavors if the state is supposedly one of the safest to live in?

Are the majority of motor vehicle related deaths for the state of California the result of accident or homicide?

 

We are discussing total deaths. Please refer to the OP

 

And going by total numbers of firearm-related deaths, the state of California has more than any other state within the united states.

 

Please refer to the OP which cites per capita data

 

The data cited in the beginning post of this discussion is incorrect. Beyond such the cited source of the presented data is well known for being intellectually dishonest.

 

These are your opinions...nothing more

 

why do you talk about gun deaths when public safety has nothing to do with your anti gun arguments-arguments which are an attack on the politics of gun owners and the NRA?

 

Public safety is the ONLY goal of gun control. Please PROVE otherwise