Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bonnie, sorry to do this, but I no longer discuss or debate the rights of American citizens with non-American citizens. This is a culture-clash that I'm not having with someone who one, hates my constitutional rights, and two, doesn't even live here. Bye!
lol no one hates your constitutional rights
but it can be argued that the Group Rights to Live with Justice Peace and Equality are challenged by the Individual Rights to Bear Arms in Modern America
which lets face it were written in an age where AK 47s weren't even thought of let alone taken to school yards
Amendments can be Amended right back again. Theres nothing Sacred about them. It was an Amendment in the First Place.
but it can be argued that the Group Rights to Live with Justice Peace and Equality are challenged by the Individual Rights to Bear Arms in Modern America
which lets face it were written in an age where AK 47s weren't even thought of let alone taken to school yards
Amendments can be Amended right back again. Theres nothing Sacred about them. It was an Amendment in the First Place.
It's the debate of your rights end, where mine begin. Your right to bare arms is fine until it is used against my rights to life, liberty, free speech and/or assembly. Too many forget this part.
you guys already have a working concept (of course you do, youre American )
Substitute guns for Road users -
America has developed a new concept to improve road safety called "Vision Zero". Vision Zero is conceived from the ethical base that it can never be acceptable that people are killed or seriously injured when moving within the road transport system. (within society - ed) It centres around an explicit goal, and develops into a highly pragmatic and scientifically based strategy which challenges the traditional approach to road safety.
Vision Zero: strategic principles
The traffic system has to adapt to take better account of the needs, mistakes and vulnerabilities of road users.
The level of violence that the human body can tolerate without being killed or seriously injured forms the basic parameter in the design of the road transport system.
Vehicle speed (see: type of guns - ed) is the most important regulating factor for a safe road traffic. It should be determined by the technical standard of both roads and vehicle so as not to exceed the level of violence that the human body can tolerate.
While the concept envisages responsibility for safety amongst the designers and users of the system, the designer has the final responsibility for "fail-safe" measures.
Vision Zero: system designer has primary responsibility
System designers are responsible for the design, operation and the use of the road transport system and are thereby responsible for the level of safety within the entire system.
Road users are responsible for following the rules for using the road transport system set by the system designers.
If the users fail to comply with these rules due to a lack of knowledge, acceptance or ability, the system designers are required to take the necessary further steps to counteract people being killed or injured.
which Should be : How to make Public Areas As Safe As Possible
The answer is NOT Cram More Guns In.
Never will be.
Problem with this concept, as all concepts with the "reduce to zero" goal, is that it eventually takes tremendous resources to do so, which those resources should be diverted to other areas where it would go to better use.
Exactly how many resources should be used for this zero goal? Would those same resources prevent more deaths if used in a different area? It is like dumping a billion dollars into food safety because two people got killed, all the while 20 are killed because of water which one million dollars would reduce the number to ten.
The answer is not to cram more guns in, but restricting guns is ridiculous, as I posted, why should law abiders be restricted due to actions of those who break the law? Why should criminals have so much influence over the actions of society? Gun violence is at historic lows, yet how many people own guns and how many guns are out there?
Making a goal of "zero gun deaths" is idiotic and waste of resources. People will always be killed by guns, that is a fact. Even in the most restrictive countries there are deaths from guns. The zero concept is just as idiotic as the zero tolerance concept and mandatory minimums concepts.
Oh, and how has Sweden done so far? Of course they failed in their goal and had to revise it, and they will have to revise it again, and again, all the while dumping more and more resources with less and less return, whereas those resources could go to better use saving more lives.
It's the debate of your rights end, where mine begin. Your right to bare arms is fine until it is used against my rights to life, liberty, free speech and/or assembly. Too many forget this part.
The right to keep and bear arms, even in the absence of universal background checks, national registration and a licensing system, in no way abridges your right to life, liberty, free speech or freedom of association.
Your argument is forgettable when it makes no sense.
The right to keep and bear arms, even in the absence of universal background checks, national registration and a licensing system, in no way abridges your right to life, liberty, free speech or freedom of association.
Your argument is forgettable when it makes no sense.
It does in certain cases. Just ask Peter Steinmetz who has brought an AR-15 at least twice into Phoenix's Sky Harbor Airport as a form of pro-second amendment protest...https://m.dailykos.com/story/2014/7/...fies-travelers
Fyi, it is because of what people think when they see guns. They don't always think "good guy with gun."
It does in certain cases. Just ask Peter Steinmetz who has brought an AR-15 at least twice into Phoenix's Sky Harbor Airport as a form of pro-second amendment protest...https://m.dailykos.com/story/2014/7/...fies-travelers
Fyi, it is because of what people think when they see guns. They don't always think "good guy with gun."
A quick little Google search can inform us that the disorderly conduct charges against Steinmetz were dropped. He may still be charged criminally for disorderly conduct (and is still to be presumed innocent in a court of law, mind you) if he fails to take NRA safety classes, fails to make a monetary donation to a youth shooting club or again open carries in an AZ airport before the end of 2016 (he may still, however, carry concealed). Harsh stuff.
Nonetheless, this is a non-example of a person infringing upon the First Amendment rights of others by exercising their liberty under the Second, which is essentially the conundrum you identified earlier.
Problem with this concept, as all concepts with the "reduce to zero" goal, is that it eventually takes tremendous resources to do so, which those resources should be diverted to other areas where it would go to better use.
Exactly how many resources should be used for this zero goal? Would those same resources prevent more deaths if used in a different area? It is like dumping a billion dollars into food safety because two people got killed, all the while 20 are killed because of water which one million dollars would reduce the number to ten.
The answer is not to cram more guns in, but restricting guns is ridiculous, as I posted, why should law abiders be restricted due to actions of those who break the law? Why should criminals have so much influence over the actions of society? Gun violence is at historic lows, yet how many people own guns and how many guns are out there?
Making a goal of "zero gun deaths" is idiotic and waste of resources. People will always be killed by guns, that is a fact. Even in the most restrictive countries there are deaths from guns. The zero concept is just as idiotic as the zero tolerance concept and mandatory minimums concepts.
Oh, and how has Sweden done so far? Of course they failed in their goal and had to revise it, and they will have to revise it again, and again, all the while dumping more and more resources with less and less return, whereas those resources could go to better use saving more lives.
Take a look at the cost to society of all the massacres
First and most obvious, the loss of life
The loss of a sense of safety for not only each individual who was shot or saw folk being shot, but the knock on effect of that trauma to us all including friends and family
People who weren't even THERE are traumatized second hand
What % of those trauma brains go on to cost society via self harm, suicide attempts, general dysfunction caused by PTSD
Once you start to add up the knock on costs gun regulation pays for itself within 5 years
Also please take a look at the RATE of gun massacres. Something that in my childhood, shocked the world, is just another day in America
You guys had 3 attempted school massacres within a week!!!!!!!
The only thing they all have in common - its NOT being outcast, black trench coats or Bad Home Life
The one thing all school shooters have in common is the ability to obtain arms and the knowledge and sufficient desensitization to use them on peers.
So, we are again immersed in this modern debate of spontaneous or fanatical attacks on crowd gatherings, access to weapons, and our helplessness to stop it. How do we predict the potential of an individual to decide to become a killer? How do we limit their access to weapons in a free society? Is there any compromise in our culture for to make access to weapons more selective?
I don't think we will ever be able to predict when someone snaps and decides to kill or to kill for a cause, not without everyone giving up their personal liberties. Unless we capitulate to be analyzed at any time for any reason, there are an infinite number of reasons that change the way we look at the world. If we want to remain free, we need to accept a certain level of risk.
Gun control is a lightening rod, politicians don't want to touch it and there are people as passionately for it as against it. But even the most ardent gun owner has to admit this is getting too frequent, is it due to cultural influence, or sensationalizing by the media? I wish I had an answer, I can see both sides, most of the recent mass shootings in the US involved legally acquired guns, so how would tighter control help? On the other hand, access to plenty of ammo and automatic weapons have resulted in a shooter doing a lot of damage in a short amount of time. Take guns away and the terrorist or murderer will find another way to kill people. Arm everyone and it could escalate what would have been minor disagreements into more frequent shootouts or collateral deaths. Do you think there is a solution in between?
As far as the media, it's one thing to report on an attack, but today's media doesn't stop there, they begin dialogue of opinions and conjecture and that may be part of the problem. The more opinionated the conversation becomes, the more it amplifies our emotions, so rather than see the problem it devolves into passionate differences and that ultimately results in a two sided and polarizing argument with no compromise and no action to the original problem. The media also provides a platform for the people who want to perpetrate terror on a global scale or local killers, they may thrive on the notoriety or the ability to force whole governments to react.
Really tough problem, especially in the US where we value our liberties and rights. There needs to be a conversation that includes organizations like the NRA as well as gun control advocates. Unless we can talk about it without attacking one another, this is going to continue to happen. What are your thoughts?
its only a debate in the USA and your average Arab country where they too shoot everything that moves and call it "sport"
The rest of us have moved on in the last 200 years or so
A quick little Google search can inform us that the disorderly conduct charges against Steinmetz were dropped. He may still be charged criminally for disorderly conduct (and is still to be presumed innocent in a court of law, mind you) if he fails to take NRA safety classes, fails to make a monetary donation to a youth shooting club or again open carries in an AZ airport before the end of 2016 (he may still, however, carry concealed). Harsh stuff.
Nonetheless, this is a non-example of a person infringing upon the First Amendment rights of others by exercising their liberty under the Second, which is essentially the conundrum you identified earlier.
Anytime a gun is in public people start to feel uneasy as we never know intentions with it. Steinmetz had his charges dropped but I honestly think he'll be dumb enough to do it again. I think that time was actually the second time he did that Your liberty ends where mine begins and vice versa.
Anytime a gun is in public people start to feel uneasy as we never know intentions with it. Steinmetz had his charges dropped but I honestly think he'll be dumb enough to do it again. I think that time was actually the second time he did that Your liberty ends where mine begins and vice versa.
Regarding what I've bolded, well, you aren't wrong, at least not philosophically. But you fail, still, to demonstrate how my liberty to keep and bear arms interferes with your liberty to...well, think they look scary, apparently.
It also does not interfere with your freedom of speech, association, etc., etc. Will you be retracting claim any time soon?
Last edited by Jeo123; 01-13-2016 at 04:06 PM..
Reason: Merged it Edit from other post
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
Your liberty ends where mine begins and vice versa.
