XtremeJibber2001 wrote:Some data points, which surprised me:
- Most 'mass shootings' are via handgun
- In one year (sample of 2016) there were ~40,000 gun deaths. 71 were a result of a mass shooting and approximately 2,500 were self-defense.
- ~20% of all mass shootings the shooter used a high-capacity magazine. This resulted in 155% more people being shot and 47% more deaths when compared to shooters w/out a highcap mag.
- 40% of mass shooters were 'prohibited gun purchasers'
- 7 of the top 10 mass shootings were carried out with a rifle ... all except the UT shooting in 1966 were via AR-15 or equivalent.
I believe there is also data that indicates a wound from a high-powered rifle like the AR-15 is more likely to be lethal than a wound from a hand gun.
One thing I think the data indicates is that the AR-15 and equivalent type assault rifles provide the shooter with a much enhanced ability to kill more people in a shorter period of time. For that reason alone, they should be banned or at least heavily regulated.
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:Some data points, which surprised me:
- Most 'mass shootings' are via handgun
- In one year (sample of 2016) there were ~40,000 gun deaths. 71 were a result of a mass shooting and approximately 2,500 were self-defense.
- ~20% of all mass shootings the shooter used a high-capacity magazine. This resulted in 155% more people being shot and 47% more deaths when compared to shooters w/out a highcap mag.
- 40% of mass shooters were 'prohibited gun purchasers'
- 7 of the top 10 mass shootings were carried out with a rifle ... all except the UT shooting in 1966 were via AR-15 or equivalent.
I believe there is also data that indicates a wound from a high-powered rifle like the AR-15 is more likely to be lethal than a wound from a hand gun. gee no way? you continue to prove you have almost zero knowledge of firearms...
One thing I think the data indicates is that the AR-15 and equivalent type assault rifles provide the shooter with a much enhanced ability to kill gee no way captain obvious...more people in a shorter period of time. must be why 80% of all mass hooters s choose something other than an AR or equivalent...For that reason alone, they should be banned or at least heavily regulated.
that's what makes them such a great defense weapon for the 100% of law abiding citizens who own what you call an AR-15 which you still cannot/will not define instead pointing to a no longer in effect ban on " scary looking guns" ...being ignorant and pointing to a definition written by other ignorant people isn't proof of anything ---except ignorance...
what the data bears out is that being killed by a mass shooting is highly unlikely and that being killed by an AR type rifle used in a mass shooting is far less likely still...yet you seem to think that they sb banned or "heavily regulated" now how does that coexist with "shall not be infringed"? but somehow you don't see why there sb any opposition or any violation of the 2A by govt mandating thousands of law abiding citizens to have their private property taken or regulated into oblivion???
how's this? no thanks but feel free to do whatever you want with YOUR property... and for the record as has been well documented here, I do not own an AR or equivalent...
mach es sehr schnell
'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
deadheadskier wrote:Why do we rarely see the "shall not be infringed crowd" crying that they can't have a M61 Vulcan?
Would society be safer if more people owned M61 Vulcans? Seems seems the data bears out that most gun crimes are not committed with an AR and zero are committed by law abiding AR owners...you conveniently ignore that in favor of some childish argument...plenty of people think society is safer because of AR ownership.
tired worn out argument...slippery slope precedent...
mach es sehr schnell
'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
deadheadskier wrote:Why do we rarely see the "shall not be infringed crowd" crying that they can't have a M61 Vulcan?
Would society be safer if more people owned M61 Vulcans? Seems plenty of people think society is safer because of AR ownership.
I would argue that a well regulated militia (note that is not the same as a federal army), should it be formed for local defense, is entirely constitutionally able to jointly own a weapon such as a cannon, tank, or other such military weapon, and house it in an armory in the community. There is no current need to, but that does not preclude the need to defend the right to do so.
deadheadskier wrote:Why do we rarely see the "shall not be infringed crowd" crying that they can't have a M61 Vulcan?
Would society be safer if more people owned M61 Vulcans? Seems plenty of people think society is safer because of AR ownership.
I would argue that a well regulated militia (note that is not the same as a federal army), should it be formed for local defense, is entirely constitutionally able to jointly own a weapon such as a cannon, tank, or other such military weapon, and house it in an armory in the community. There is no current need to, but that does not preclude the need to defend the right to do so.
Arguably this is what the national guard is and does. Personally I'm not into random groups of people arming themselves without some form of state sanction at least at the local level (town/city/state). I don't think the second amendment sanctions wholly private groups forming militias absent some form of local state/city/town sanction. I think when you look at the historical context of when the amendment was written, these militias were largely formed under the direction and control of local government. The reason the right is a personal one is because at the time, local militia men were expected to provide their own arms.
Kpdemello wrote: Arguably this is what the national guard is and does. Personally I'm not into random groups of people arming themselves without some form of state sanction at least at the local level (town/city/state). I don't think the second amendment sanctions wholly private groups forming militias absent some form of local state/city/town sanction. I think when you look at the historical context of when the amendment was written, these militias were largely formed under the direction and control of local government. The reason the right is a personal one is because at the time, local militia men were expected to provide their own arms.
So if the government no longer expects local men to provide their own arms, the second amendment is no longer a personal right?
Kpdemello wrote: Arguably this is what the national guard is and does. Personally I'm not into random groups of people arming themselves without some form of state sanction at least at the local level (town/city/state). I don't think the second amendment sanctions wholly private groups forming militias absent some form of local state/city/town sanction. I think when you look at the historical context of when the amendment was written, these militias were largely formed under the direction and control of local government. The reason the right is a personal one is because at the time, local militia men were expected to provide their own arms.
So if the government no longer expects local men to provide their own arms, the second amendment is no longer a personal right?
Didn't the suit against the DC gun laws too limiting and failed to provide a means for a resident of DC to own a firearm? Court said it was the PERSONAL right to keep and bare arms, not just an army or part time army such as the Guard. It was sent back down to the lower court for re direct. This was also the finding for the city of Chicago with the same results.
Kpdemello wrote: Arguably this is what the national guard is and does. Personally I'm not into random groups of people arming themselves without some form of state sanction at least at the local level (town/city/state). I don't think the second amendment sanctions wholly private groups forming militias absent some form of local state/city/town sanction. I think when you look at the historical context of when the amendment was written, these militias were largely formed under the direction and control of local government. The reason the right is a personal one is because at the time, local militia men were expected to provide their own arms.
So if the government no longer expects local men to provide their own arms, the second amendment is no longer a personal right?
No, I think that goes too far outside the meaning of the text. It's clearly written as a personal right. I'm just saying the idea that the second amendment sanctions private groups without some form of local government sanction to stockpile weapons of any kind without restriction is not supported by the text or the historical context.
Again, the basic concept here is that no right is unlimited. The right to free speech, freedom of the press, etc. are all subject to reasonable limits. So too is the right to keep and bear arms.
Edit: I think it's notable here too that the words of the 2nd amendment are "shall not be infringed" rather than the "congress shall make no law" language of the first amendment. Arguably that means Congress has more latitude to regulate the right protected by the 2nd Amendment then it does with the 1st.
Dr. NO wrote:Didn't the suit against the DC gun laws too limiting and failed to provide a means for a resident of DC to own a firearm? Court said it was the PERSONAL right to keep and bare arms, not just an army or part time army such as the Guard. It was sent back down to the lower court for re direct. This was also the finding for the city of Chicago with the same results.
Yes. That's the same case I cited earlier in the thread where the Court also says that the right to keep an bear arms is not unlimited, and is subject to reasonable regulations. The Court said the D.C. law was too restrictive, but that should not be interpreted to mean that other regulations (e.g possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill) are unconstitutional.
Kpdemello wrote: Arguably this is what the national guard is and does. Personally I'm not into random groups of people arming themselves without some form of state sanction at least at the local level (town/city/state). I don't think the second amendment sanctions wholly private groups forming militias absent some form of local state/city/town sanction. I think when you look at the historical context of when the amendment was written, these militias were largely formed under the direction and control of local government. The reason the right is a personal one is because at the time, local militia men were expected to provide their own arms.
So if the government no longer expects local men to provide their own arms, the second amendment is no longer a personal right?
No, I think that goes too far outside the meaning of the text. It's clearly written as a personal right. I'm just saying the idea that the second amendment sanctions private groups without some form of local government sanction to stockpile weapons of any kind without restriction is not supported by the text or the historical context.
Again, the basic concept here is that no right is unlimited. The right to free speech, freedom of the press, etc. are all subject to reasonable limits. So too is the right to keep and bear arms.
Edit: I think it's notable here too that the words of the 2nd amendment are "shall not be infringed" rather than the "congress shall make no law" language of the first amendment. Arguably that means Congress has more latitude to regulate the right protected by the 2nd Amendment then it does with the 1st.
Show me where the word militia implies government oversight or sanction. I've seen it used totally opposite to government sanctioned.
Show me how "Shall not be infringed" is any weaker standard than "Congress shall make no law" The first amendment limits only congress, the second prohibits any infringement.
Kpdemello wrote: Arguably this is what the national guard is and does. Personally I'm not into random groups of people arming themselves without some form of state sanction at least at the local level (town/city/state). I don't think the second amendment sanctions wholly private groups forming militias absent some form of local state/city/town sanction. I think when you look at the historical context of when the amendment was written, these militias were largely formed under the direction and control of local government. The reason the right is a personal one is because at the time, local militia men were expected to provide their own arms.
So if the government no longer expects local men to provide their own arms, the second amendment is no longer a personal right?
No, I think that goes too far outside the meaning of the text. It's clearly written as a personal right. I'm just saying the idea that the second amendment sanctions private groups without some form of local government sanction to stockpile weapons of any kind without restriction is not supported by the text or the historical context.
Again, the basic concept here is that no right is unlimited. The right to free speech, freedom of the press, etc. are all subject to reasonable limits. So too is the right to keep and bear arms.
Edit: I think it's notable here too that the words of the 2nd amendment are "shall not be infringed" rather than the "congress shall make no law" language of the first amendment. Arguably that means Congress has more latitude to regulate the right protected by the 2nd Amendment then it does with the 1st.
Show me where the word militia implies government oversight or sanction. I've seen it used totally opposite to government sanctioned.
Show me how "Shall not be infringed" is any weaker standard than "Congress shall make no law" The first amendment limits only congress, the second prohibits any infringement.
yep only in bizzaroworld is "shall not be infringed" grounds for " more latitude to regulate"
"the right" ( subject) " shall not be infringed" ( predicate)
infringed
Definition of infringe
transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
infringe a patent
2obsolete : DEFEAT, FRUSTRATE
intransitive verb
: ENCROACH —used with on or upon
infringe on our rights
I assume you understand the meaning of "not" but just in case
not
not
/nät/
Learn to pronounce
adverb
1.
used with an auxiliary verb or “be” to form the negative.
"he would not say"
2.
used as a short substitute for a negative clause.
"maybe I'll regret it, but I hope not"
now where do you see this "latitude for regulation"?
mach es sehr schnell
'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
Mister Moose wrote:Show me where the word militia implies government oversight or sanction. I've seen it used totally opposite to government sanctioned.
That's because the word's meaning has evolved since crazies adopted it for things like the Michigan Militia. See this wikipedia page for the appropriate historical context of what the word meant when the founders wrote the bill of rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)
Mister Moose wrote:Show me how "Shall not be infringed" is any weaker standard than "Congress shall make no law" The first amendment limits only congress, the second prohibits any infringement.
It's probably just semantics but it seems to me that "Congress shall make no law" is a lot stronger than the right "shall not be infringed" because it leaves more wiggle room for interpretation of what constitutes infringement. "Congress shall make no law" is pretty specific. You bring up a good point regarding the first amendment by its terms only limiting Congress, but in reality that amendment has been extended and applied to both the President and the States by actual court decisions.
Here's the thing about the Constitution. You can't just read it in a vacuum. You have to put it into the context of both when it was written, and all of the constitutional law that has been considered and decided during our nation's history. The founders didn't intend it to be a static document that couldn't evolve with the times. That's why it is written so generally (that, and probably also because it was the product of committee and compromise).
Here's a question for you. Why do you think the drafters added that clause about the militia to the second amendment? Because I don't think any of the other amendments in the bill of rights have an explanation or reason as to why the right is enumerated except for the right to bear arms. It's an odd phrasing if you asked me.
