This is a good topic for conversation but probably would derail this particular thread too much.
Juvenile crime is a huge problem in American cities. Police aren't empowered to stop it.
Current Affairs The " another shooting in America " thread
- Status
This is a good topic for conversation but probably would derail this particular thread too much.
Juvenile crime is a huge problem in American cities. Police aren't empowered to stop it.
Concealed carry and open carry, whether lawfully or unlawfully practiced, was not an apparent factor in the Parkland tragedy.
That they're unrelated to a culture of violence and gun obsession and mass shootings is a ridiculous claim, at least a null hypothesis. Maybe it's proven that these are unrelated, and then that's ok, but we as a nation have serious difficulties figuring out what is right and what is wrong regarding guns.
Maybe you've seen, and if so you probably have a reasonable response, to the question of arming school teachers, etc, which POTUS proposed. He suggests that if as many as 10%-20% were armed this would deter shooters. (I am not confident about this, but that's common rhetoric I understand.)
You may also be familiar with a case in MN, in which a school employee, who was lawfully carrying a concealed weapon, was shot a traffic stop.
If it's not a clear cut case to trained police who is a danger and who is not, how are we supposed to believe that regular citizens, especially teachers who are already engaged in two extremely taxing activities--teaching the mind and counseling the emotions of young kids--should also be employed as first responders?
From a cultural standpoint, here in a America we're very bad off in the head. We're not going to reach any good resolution if protecting the "civil liberty" of weapon possession is paramount to protecting the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Although I want a ban on bump stocks I'm deeply skeptical that this will survive legal challenge. This administration certainly doesn't have a very good record (muslim ban in particular) to suggest it has thought through all the legal objections. Far easier to take the legislation that has already passed the House and get a version of it through the Senate.
At least Parkland seems to have made people more responsive to warning signs.
They're not factors in the overwhelming majority of gun tragedies. Hence, my objection to conflation of issues.
The rest of your post is fairly reasonable, although I think civil liberties are certainly paramount. We codified them and made them difficult to eradicate because it was anticipated that they would be subject to encroachment. Whether various liberties are stepping on one another and their prioritization is a different discussion.
I feel like I've see this in many states over the last week. I'm sure some are nothing, but it's frightening how many "pipe bombs found" stories I've seen, as it would seem to indicate someone was fairly serious about moving forward with that type of attack.
Yeah, a lot more tangible evidence of ill intent (and capability to do so) than just angry words via the internet.
Also means that gun control, even if you support it as I do, isn't the only thing need to work on - trying to prevent these kids from feeling so angry in the first place is important and would probably help with terrorism as well.
I think we call all agree that not all civil liberties are the same, even if we have difficulty determining which are most important.
To me, 2A is not paramount among civil liberties, but more important than whether we are protecting 2A is a discussion of what that embodies. Your right to bear arms does not equal your right to bear all arms in all circumstances, as you wish. And it's not an easy discussion, unless you sit on either extreme.
From a societal standpoint, I prefer concealed carry over open carry. The implications of children growing up in a military state--even more so when regular citizens are those imposing justice--is dangerous. But from the standpoint of reason (and given what little I know about law), open carry makes more sense as a direct interpretation of 2A.
Although, personally, I don't see the need for either. And I think most people who open carry have psychological issues (whether image or fear) that need dealing with by a licensed (no, the other license) professional and shouldn't be carrying openly/frequently. I mean, it's one thing if you're a property manager going to "dangerous" sites in the city on a regular basis, but suburban moms in Gwinnet County don't need guns in their handbags.
I share your opinions about most open carry people, particularly the "I'm gonna bring my AR-15 to Starbucks lololol" people. They're a detriment to everyone, gun rights advocates included. If I lived in rural Montana and spent half the day working on my ranch, my opinions about open carry might be different.
Regarding your point about a military state, I tend to have the same preference. That said, I do think there is a strange fear of guns in this country that is relatively new to America. There is nothing wrong with being cautious about an object that can be used dangerously, of course. I want people to go "whoa" when they see someone kitted out with tac gear. I'm talking about the person who freaks out and calls the police because they saw a concealed pistol on someone shopping at Safeway with their family, as though that guy was about to commit an armed robbery in between picking out cereals with his family. I'm sure some will argue that's a sign of progress, but I certainly don't.
As for "need" - I'm not sure how you define that. Gwinnett County can be a dangerous place in reality. The likelihood of you using a firearm to protect yourself is very small, but yet, I pretty regularly hear about homeowners/carry folks shooting home invaders or armed robbers in my area (once a month, sometimes more?). The chances are pretty small that I can use a firearm to defend my wife and myself in a dark parking lot in this city, and yet, people get robbed in dark parking lots in this city, often at gunpoint, on a daily basis. I'm not sure I would say I need to carry concealed. But then, I'm not really sure why "needing to" is the question.
Still have that confidence Pete?
Just fyi the fix NICS bill is meant to ensure that if say the army discharge someone because he beat up his wife that data gets reported into a system that would flag it if he tried to get a gun - pretty bipartisan goal you would think.
Last edited:
I think Erick is partially right, especially with regard to his bizarre attack on Scott and silence on Scott Israel. He may have solidly worked himself into a position of influence for the left, but I think the public will tire of him soon. He reminds me of Sandra Fluke in a way.
- Status