Time for a "Mass Shootings" Forum?

Alright, fine, but what's the argument for assault weapons being legal? What's the benefit? As far as I know, they're not sport, they're not for self defense, they're not hunting. They're just for killing people.

In which case one death seems like enough to say no.

Not that I'm kicking and screaming on this issue either. Handguns are the real problem.

I think we need to balance the use of an object with the potential hazard it poses. for instance, although knives are responsible for far more deaths than assault rifles, because of the many and varied reasonable every-day uses of knives, it isn't reasonable to ban them despite the potential hazard. however, as you reasonable argue, assault rifles have little use other than killing people. same goes for RPGs and bazookas. so despite the fact that they are not responsible for that many deaths, the fact that they serve no other purpose beyond target shooting/recreational use at a gun range, and killing people, I think it's reasonable to control them more strictly, if not outright ban them.

The 2nd Amendment is about killing people. It is just that the people to be killed were supposed to be foreign troops, not women and children. Assault rifles would be good for shooting invading Canadian soldiers. The founding fathers didn't write the 2nd amendment because they were concerned about the right to hunt or to shoot targets- they clearly envisioned the "arms" being protected as being kept for the purpose of killing other human beings.

I think it's pretty clear that they were also thinking about domestic troops, and I think that's what most of the craziest gun nuts are thinking about. That said, our government does have a track record of doing some things that is would have been reasonable to disagree with by force.

Those last four words--why wouldn't we, if it's an age thing?

I was thinking mostly because of the size and diversity of our population, plus probably this stupid war on drugs thing we have going on which serves to exacerbate (if not cause) our violence issues.

No, it's not that Western Europe is as he described, but it is a very true statement that the New World hasn't had nearly as many WW1s or Eastern wars as the Old World. The US had the Civil War, Latin America's had small wars since Bolivar, but there have never been any truly global New World wars on New World soil to the size and extent (relative to population) that the Old World has. It's a quite feasible statement that Europe at least has grown weary of the death toll, and that Western Europe may value human life more than other parts of the world. That's a valid argument - I wouldn't dismiss it until I saw surveys that tried to quantify the 'value' of a human life on a cross-state basis.

?? I didn't describe Western Europe.

Also, Western Europe's wars were organized armies against armies. Not the kind of frontier free-for-all that the US experienced - and fairly recently I might add. If Europe ever really experienced something similar, it was a long, long time ago. Like over 1k years ago.

Not a big fan of Scalia but he intimated that the door could be open for future gun control decisions, even though the DC gun ban was "shot down" (sorry). He didn't mention scrapping the 2nd amendment to do so:

Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court's most vocal and conservative justices, said on Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons.

"It will have to be decided in future cases," Scalia said on Fox News Sunday. But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also "locational limitations" on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted.

The legal decision that struck down the DC ban already says that, so his comments aren't anything new. I think we should be careful to read too much into such a statement, however, just as we shouldn't get too carried away by Breyer's comments about freedom of speech. Yes, it is true that the court will need to give more definition in the future as to what level of gun control laws will be constitutional, but the exceptions shouldn't swallow the rule. In a constitutional system where individual rights are supposed to be enshrined in a bill of rights, if the right is almost entirely gutted by judicially created limitations or exceptions, regardless of whether we are talking about speech, religion, search and seizure, property rights or right to bear arms, that is a balance that is dangerous to shift.

All the other individual rights have limitations, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that gun rights are not absolute. But, if gun rights had to bow completely at the alter of public safety, why couldn't the same reasoning be used to attack our other individual rights? Could we ban violent movies to prevent mass murders? Could we ban certain religions to prevent mass shootings? Could we require body scans at public places like movie theaters to protect people?

In order to have widesweeping and very broad gun bans, we really need to repeal the 2nd amendment. If you think the federal government is already strong, having the Supreme Court essentially wipe the 2nd amendment away by fiat could open a pandora's box of even greater governmental power and control over individuals.

Snuff films aren't legal.

Plenty of schools have metal detectors. Not sure, but how many other 1st world countries do you think have metal detectors in schools?

I don't see the 2nd amendment going away but limiting rights as you pointed out is the best way to make the public safer.

How about IQ tests for gun owners?

A Florida man expressed indignation after being arrested July 30 for supposedly shooting a black man in the head, explaining to police that he had "only shot a n----r," police said.

Walton Henry Butler, 59, allegedly shot the 32-year-old Everett Gant in the head, who visited his
Port Saint Joe apartment to confront him about making racist comments to children in the apartment complex, according to the Broward Palm Beach New Times. The blog reports that Butler proceeded to eat dinner as Gant lay bleeding outside his door and cites an affidavit saying that Butler used the racial slur when questioned by the sheriff.

Butler is charged with attempted murder with a hate crime enhancement.

Police said Butler called 911, and expressed confusion at his arrest. "He was brought to the investigation unit where he was interviewed and basically admitted to shooting the victim and said he shot a, used a racial slur, and said that is what he shot and acted like it was not like a big deal or anything to him," Gulf County Sheriff Joe Nugent told WJHG.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/walton-henry-buttler-shooting-hate-crime_n_1730256.html

he'll do well in prison...

I don't understand your point. Are you saying it would be okay to ban Batman movies? In many states felons can't be in possession of a gun. How does either example support broader and more encompassing restrictions on speech and gun rights?

I'm not following this point either. There are also laws prohibiting having a gun in a school. Does the presence of a metal detector at a school mean that people can be stopped and searched randomly in public generally? Do the laws prohibiting guns in schools mean the government can ban guns in all public places?

No, the school metal detectors are allowed under in loco parentis, I reckon. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Pointing out that there are limits on our constitutional rights.

It' OK to carry an AR-15 and handgun to a HC reform rally in AZ...because "freedoms" and stuff:

He wouldn't give his name but he did say "Because I can do it," he said when asked why he was armed. "In Arizona, I still have some freedoms."

Two police officers were staying very close to the man.

It is also okay to picket outside funerals, have KKK parades and burn American flags due to our freedoms.

I'm not following your legal distinction. What does "no" respond to?

1st Amendment, generally no danger posed.

Asshat with assault rifle at a political rally...less Constitutional, more this guy:

Fire grampa into the ass of a deer...it's the way he always wanted to go out after all

http://www.myholysmoke.com/