Mass shooting in Thousand Oaks, CA

[Jason]

 

[Snaynay1]

5 hours ago, TwinIon said:

By that logic, no object, substance, or act should be banned.

 

I think the evidence for my assumption is the dramatically lower gun death rate in countries where strong bans and penalties exist. I doubt we'd ever get it from 12 per 100k down to the .06 of Japan, but inching it towards the 3 of Switzerland might be doable. Cutting it in half would mean 18k fewer deaths a year.

Switzerland has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world. And I am sure most of them are fully automatic assault rifles, with 30 round magazines. We have more deaths from guns because we are just fucked up as a whole. 

[skillzdadirecta]

Thousand Oaks Shooter may have trolled the nation about his shooting before he did it.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/us/thousand-oaks-gunman/index.html

 

Quote

Authorities have identified a Facebook post believed to have been made by the shooter around the time of the attack, according to a law enforcement official familiar with the ongoing investigation.

 

In it, the writer says: "I hope people call me insane... (laughing emojis).. wouldn't that just be a big ball of irony? Yeah.. I'm insane, but the only thing you people do after these shootings is 'hopes and prayers'.. or 'keep you in my thoughts'... every time... and wonder why these keep happening..."

 

When CNN read the post to a friend of Long's, who did not want to be publicly identified, the friend said, "That does not sound like Ian to me at all. I don't know what was going through his head when he wrote this. It must have been terrible."

 

[mclumber1]

2 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Thousand Oaks Shooter may have trolled the nation about his shooting before he did it.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/us/thousand-oaks-gunman/index.html

 

 

 

That's some pretty fucked up stuff

[DarkStar189]

Regarding Telemachus Orfanos that @Jason mentioned.......Fuck man, that poor guy.  He survived the Las Vegas shooting only to be killed at this bar.  

[SaysWho?]

12 hours ago, Jason said:

 

 

 

Yup, that's pretty incredible that he was there for the Vegas shooting.

Quote

 

Susan Orfanos also said her son, Telemachus Orfanos, survived the Las Vegas mass shooting last year.

 

"My son was in Las Vegas with a lot of his friends and he came home. He didn't come home last night, and I don't want prayers. I don't want thoughts. I want gun control, and I hope to God nobody sends me anymore prayers. I want gun control. No more guns," she said.

 

 

[Keyser_Soze]

Team Justin lost one in the shooting as well.

 

http://www.cbs8.com/story/39448825/former-coronado-high-student-killed-in-thousand-oaks-bar-shooting

[Boyle5150]

12 hours ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Violence and murder are illegal because they generally cause harm to another person.   Simply owning a gun, or using a drug, doesn't harm anyone else.   Once you cross the line and cause harm to someone else with that gun or drug that is when justice should be served. 

Drugs aren’t designed with the purpose of killing.  

Once you cross the line and use your rocket launcher to cause harm to someone else, that’s when justice should be served.  

[mclumber1]

1 minute ago, Boyle5150 said:

Drugs aren’t designed with the purpose of killing.  

Once you cross the line and use your rocket launcher to cause harm to someone else, that’s when justice should be served.  

 

I agree that drugs are not designed for killing.  That's why yo should only be punished if you cause harm to someone else, or have the potential harm someone else, like if you were to drive under the influence. 

[Boyle5150]

14 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

I agree that drugs are not designed for killing.  That's why yo should only be punished if you cause harm to someone else, or have the potential harm someone else, like if you were to drive under the influence. 

Do you believe that all drugs should be legal? 

Even those made with the intent to kill. 

[Keyser_Soze]

If guns don't cause any harm then why aren't they allowed on airplanes?

[CitizenVectron]

13 hours ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Violence and murder are illegal because they generally cause harm to another person.   Simply owning a gun, or using a drug, doesn't harm anyone else.   Once you cross the line and cause harm to someone else with that gun or drug that is when justice should be served. 

 

Should people be allowed to own a bazooka? They don't do anything on their own either. The same with chemical weapons.

[PaladinSolo]

My anthrax will never harm anyone! 

[Jason]

5 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

My anthrax will never harm anyone! 

 

Yeah they're all a bunch of old dudes now. 

[SaysWho?]

 

[Jason]

24 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

If guns don't cause any harm then why aren't they allowed on airplanes?

 

Don't air marshals get to bring their guns on board?

[TwinIon]

12 hours ago, Snaynay1 said:

Switzerland has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world. And I am sure most of them are fully automatic assault rifles, with 30 round magazines. We have more deaths from guns because we are just fucked up as a whole. 

That was kind of my point. They have a lot of guns (though far fewer than we do), they have one of the highest rates of gun violence in Europe, but they also have far more strict gun control than we have. If we reduced our rate of gun deaths to their level, we'd have 28k fewer gun deaths a year. I don't think that's practically unachievable, even if it might be politically.

[SaysWho?]

 

 

 

 

[skillzdadirecta]

54 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

Should people be allowed to own a bazooka? They don't do anything on their own either. The same with chemical weapons.

 

The right for a "well regulated militia" to bear arms clearly means that every citizen is entitled to Sherman Tanks.

[skillzdadirecta]

1 hour ago, Keyser_Soze said:

If guns don't cause any harm then why aren't they allowed on airplanes?

 

Well to be fair, guns don't actually kill people... bullets do.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

The right for a "well regulated militia" to bear arms clearly means that every citizen is entitled to Sherman Tanks.

*the people

[Jason]

20 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

The right for a "well regulated militia" to bear arms clearly means that every citizen is entitled to Sherman Tanks.

 

The second amendment is not intended to limit gun ownership to people in militias.

 

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm

[skillzdadirecta]

6 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

The second amendment is not intended to limit gun ownership to people in militias.

 

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm

 

What about "the well regulated" part?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

What about "the well regulated" part?

It is a justification clause. The subject of the second amendment is “the people”, not the militia. And we know that “the people” isn’t just the militia because “the people” is used in exactly the same way in the first amendment.

 

The necessity of a well regulated militia justifies the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

 

Repeal!

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

Lol @ the nra. People who see bullet related trauma cannot weigh in. If the NRA had their way only the NRA could weigh in. My guess, there would be overwhelming consensus from everyone that guns are not the issue. If anything there aren't enough people with guns to stop this. All the "experts" agree. 

 

Besides even if there was only 1 shooting per year with heavy gun regulation that would mean it isn't working, so why bother wasting time trying to regulate. 

 

 

We are going to get to a point where had we banned the sale of all new fire arms when all these outcries started in the US, the shooter would not have had the gun used to shoot people, because he could not have purchased it at all. 

[Jason]

1 hour ago, skillzdadirecta said:

What about "the well regulated" part?

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

The bolded part is the operative clause. The non-bolded part is offered up as a justification for why the bolded part is a good idea, but the bolded part doesn't actually depend on the non-bolded part being true to be in effect.

 

As covered at the link, there are a lot of contemporaneous legal documents (e.g. state constitutions) with things written in this "justification clause, operative clause" format.

[CitizenVectron]

Honestly the second amendment should have been repealed by now due to technological advances.

[Mr.Vic20]

1 minute ago, CitizenVectron said:

Honestly the second amendment should have been repealed by now due to technological advances.

Yes, but that is a logical thought and this is an emotional issue. Warning, Fuzzy logic incoming. 

[Jason]

3 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

Honestly the second amendment should have been repealed by now due to technological advances.

 

Yeah I'm not against amending/repealing the second amendment, but I don't think just pretending that the amendment says what we want it to say is a good path to go down.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

The militia, made up of ordinary citizens, most of which using their own weapons was most of the fighting force wearing those blue coats. Their navy was privateers with their own cannons.

 

The thought at the time would be that if the people did not have a right to bear arms the country's ability to defend itself would be significantly hindered. 

 

Our military, including state national guard is well funded and supplied. Recruits do not need to bring their own weapons. And despite what movies have shown, any force capable of destroying our military would not be bested by weekend warriors using AR15s and glock 9s. If their goal is occupation, maybe with the population size a resistance could be possible. But if their goal is extermination, we have no chance. Even with superior numbers if every US citizen were armed, that cannot do anything against ICBMs, jet mounted weapons, and we're not the only nation with drone technology. 

[Jason]

10 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

The militia, made up of ordinary citizens, most of which using their own weapons was most of the fighting force wearing those blue coats. Their navy was privateers with their own cannons.

 

The thought at the time would be that if the people did not have a right to bear arms the country's ability to defend itself would be significantly hindered. 

 

Our military, including state national guard is well funded and supplied. Recruits do not need to bring their own weapons. And despite what movies have shown, any force capable of destroying our military would not be bested by weekend warriors using AR15s and glock 9s. If their goal is occupation, maybe with the population size a resistance could be possible. But if their goal is extermination, we have no chance. Even with superior numbers if every US citizen were armed, that cannot do anything against ICBMs, jet mounted weapons, and we're not the only nation with drone technology. 

 

The fact that people needed to show up already knowing how to handle a gun is definitely the basic thought behind the Second Amendment's justification clause. But, again, the operative clause isn't dependent on the justification clause continuing to be true.

[johnny]

We need to stop putting our founding fathers on a pedestal. Shockingly, things they wrote hundreds of years ago might not be best for us now. 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

4 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

The fact that people needed to show up already knowing how to handle a gun is definitely the basic thought behind the Second Amendment's justification clause. But, again, the operative clause isn't dependent on the justification clause continuing to be true.

A civilian militia is no longer necessary or capable of protecting a free society. Since it is not necessary the right to bear arms is not needed 

[mclumber1]

Just now, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

A civilian militia is no longer necessary or capable of protecting a free society. Since it is not necessary the right to bear arms is not needed 

 

The right to bear arms is a natural right though.  

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

The right to bear arms is a natural right though.  

Banned by @SFLUFAN