Gun policy analysis thread.

[TSherbs]

This thread is for current policy.

Sure.

Current policy sucks. It reflects American corporate and individual addiction to a false mythology of personal safety through lethal personal armament. It is a policy stuck in a colonial past of little law enforcement and fear of tyranny and now reinforced further via a SC also stuck in a myopic view of the past. The policy degrades our society, polluting it with a lethal poison while filling the coffers of an industry very willing to make money with the clear correlation of collateral dead humans. In this regard, we are an embarrassment to the world of advanced nations.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Scalia claimed his interpretation was based on originalism. However, other experts in this field have stated that if that were the case Scalia's decision would have been the opposite of what it was.

Here's an article that may be of some interest: REUTERS


Reuters is considered politically centrist, MEDIA BIAS

[kazoolaw]

Scalia claimed his interpretation was based on originalism. However, other experts in this field have stated that if that were the case Scalia's decision would have been the opposite of what it was.

Here's an article that may be of some interest: REUTERS


Reuters is considered politically centrist, MEDIA BIAS

Justice Kagan is certainly well spoken, and entitled to her opinion. Would she apply her reasoning to Roe finding a Constitutional right where none existed?
Presumably she would not have opposed the reversal of Scott vs Sanford.
An aside: a centrist source can report on liberal views.

[Chuck Naill]

Scalia claimed his interpretation was based on originalism. However, other experts in this field have stated that if that were the case Scalia's decision would have been the opposite of what it was.

Here's an article that may be of some interest: REUTERS


Reuters is considered politically centrist, MEDIA BIAS

I the sense that the Second Amendment says that ordinary citizens can own a firearm, he is correct. The issue today, which must be considered, is how guns are being used which are doing the most harm rather than defending a "free state". Home protection makes sense. Allowing a deranged child to own a gun without training or restrictions, is not home protection or defending a "free state".

The bottom line is, you cannot redefine the amendment to be broader than it is.

I am glad I can own a gun whether I do or not. I don't see myself carrying one on my hip. The last thing I want to do it shoot an innocent person. Given the harm trained law officers do with their issued firearms, there is no way I would not do worse. Apparently, they are trained to respond quickly and empty the clip.

[scottt]

This thread is for current policy.

Sure.

Current policy sucks. It reflects American corporate and individual addiction to a false mythology of personal safety through lethal personal armament. It is a policy stuck in a colonial past of little law enforcement and fear of tyranny and now reinforced further via a SC also stuck in a myopic view of the past. The policy degrades our society, polluting it with a lethal poison while filling the coffers of an industry very willing to make money with the clear correlation of collateral dead humans. In this regard, we are an embarrassment to the world of advanced nations.

Wow, that reads like a speech given by a tinpot dictator to the U.N. Assembly. Lots of emotion, not much else.

"A false mythology of personal safety though lethal personal armament."

How would you suggest people achieve an increased chance of personal safety from criminals who use lethal personal armament? Random shootings, robberies, assaults, rapes, beheadings, etc.

"a policy stuck in a colonial past of little law enforcement" That kinda sums up what is happening every day, what with depleted police staff and non-prosecution/revolving door criminal justice.

"a fear of tyranny" Well, given that this is the gun policy thread, I'll just leave this link for those who wish to peruse it:

https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/...formation-dhs/


"filling the coffers of an industry very willing to make money with the clear correlation of collateral dead humans."

Doesn't the Pharmaceutical industry have its own thread?

[scottt]

Allowing a deranged child to own a gun without training or restrictions, is not home protection or defending a "free state".


I am glad I can own a gun whether I do or not. I don't see myself carrying one on my hip. The last thing I want to do it shoot an innocent person. Given the harm trained law officers do with their issued firearms, there is no way I would not do worse. Apparently, they are trained to respond quickly and empty the clip.

In general, I don't think a deranged anyone should have access to firearms, regardless of their level of training, do you?

What makes you think you would shoot an innocent person?

What is the harm/good ratio of the cops, I've never really researched it. We know all the screwups are on the news, but what percentage is that of actions overall? You don't seem to have a high opinion of them (I'm rather neutral on them generally), but I'm pretty sure there is a little more to it than responding quickly and magdumping on things.

It sounds more like you don't trust yourself, and by extension, anyone with the responsible use of a firearm in a public setting.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Instead of off-handedly dismissing the perspectives of other people, how about reading the following and using it as a guide?

Social perspective-taking is the ability to understand how a situation appears to another person and how that person is reacting cognitively and emotionally.
The opposite of perspective-taking is egocentrism or being unaware that other perspectives exist and that one’s own view of the situation or issue is incomplete and limited.
Perspective-taking results in more information, both personal and impersonal, being disclosed (Johnson & Johnson, 1989); increases the capacity to phrase messages so that they
are easily understood by the other; increases accurate comprehension of the other’s messages; increases understanding and retention of the other’s information and reasoning;
facilitates the achievement of creative and high- quality problem solving; and promotes more positive perceptions of the interaction, the other person, and the joint cooperative efforts.
Once people can view the issue and situation both from their own perspective and the other persons’ perspectives, they can more easily find mutually beneficial solutions.
Perspective-taking also communicates that one really understands their thoughts, feelings, and needs. It is usually easier to jointly solve a problem when the other people feel understood and respected.

Reference

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Interaction Book Company.

[Chuck Naill]

Allowing a deranged child to own a gun without training or restrictions, is not home protection or defending a "free state".


I am glad I can own a gun whether I do or not. I don't see myself carrying one on my hip. The last thing I want to do it shoot an innocent person. Given the harm trained law officers do with their issued firearms, there is no way I would not do worse. Apparently, they are trained to respond quickly and empty the clip.

In general, I don't think a deranged anyone should have access to firearms, regardless of their level of training, do you?

What makes you think you would shoot an innocent person?

What is the harm/good ratio of the cops, I've never really researched it. We know all the screwups are on the news, but what percentage is that of actions overall? You don't seem to have a high opinion of them (I'm rather neutral on them generally), but I'm pretty sure there is a little more to it than responding quickly and magdumping on things.

It sounds more like you don't trust yourself, and by extension, anyone with the responsible use of a firearm in a public setting.

You’re so wrong on so many of your assumptions that it’s not worth the effort to respond.

[dneal]

Allowing a deranged child to own a gun without training or restrictions, is not home protection or defending a "free state".


I am glad I can own a gun whether I do or not. I don't see myself carrying one on my hip. The last thing I want to do it shoot an innocent person. Given the harm trained law officers do with their issued firearms, there is no way I would not do worse. Apparently, they are trained to respond quickly and empty the clip.

In general, I don't think a deranged anyone should have access to firearms, regardless of their level of training, do you?

What makes you think you would shoot an innocent person?

What is the harm/good ratio of the cops, I've never really researched it. We know all the screwups are on the news, but what percentage is that of actions overall? You don't seem to have a high opinion of them (I'm rather neutral on them generally), but I'm pretty sure there is a little more to it than responding quickly and magdumping on things.

It sounds more like you don't trust yourself, and by extension, anyone with the responsible use of a firearm in a public setting.

You’re so wrong on so many of your assumptions that it’s not worth the effort to respond.

Yet you did respond, with nothing but an insult.

Curious.

[Chuck Naill]

Allowing a deranged child to own a gun without training or restrictions, is not home protection or defending a "free state".


I am glad I can own a gun whether I do or not. I don't see myself carrying one on my hip. The last thing I want to do it shoot an innocent person. Given the harm trained law officers do with their issued firearms, there is no way I would not do worse. Apparently, they are trained to respond quickly and empty the clip.

In general, I don't think a deranged anyone should have access to firearms, regardless of their level of training, do you?

What makes you think you would shoot an innocent person?

What is the harm/good ratio of the cops, I've never really researched it. We know all the screwups are on the news, but what percentage is that of actions overall? You don't seem to have a high opinion of them (I'm rather neutral on them generally), but I'm pretty sure there is a little more to it than responding quickly and magdumping on things.

It sounds more like you don't trust yourself, and by extension, anyone with the responsible use of a firearm in a public setting.

You’re so wrong on so many of your assumptions that it’s not worth the effort to respond.

Yet you did respond, with nothing but an insult.

Curious.

EOC, you are in no position to even respond based on your past behavior.

Scott makes several inaccurate assumptions. Responding would take more effort at this point.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

EOC, you are in no position to even respond based on your past behavior.

Are you the self-appointed arbiter of this now?

[dneal]

Chuck must be experiencing covid fog.

[Chuck Naill]

The joys of being informed and following @dneal.

[TSherbs]

This thread is for current policy.

Sure.

Current policy sucks. It reflects American corporate and individual addiction to a false mythology of personal safety through lethal personal armament. It is a policy stuck in a colonial past of little law enforcement and fear of tyranny and now reinforced further via a SC also stuck in a myopic view of the past. The policy degrades our society, polluting it with a lethal poison while filling the coffers of an industry very willing to make money with the clear correlation of collateral dead humans. In this regard, we are an embarrassment to the world of advanced nations.

Wow, that reads like a speech given by a tinpot dictator to the U.N. Assembly. Lots of emotion, not much else....

Are you dneal?

[dneal]

This thread is for current policy.

Sure.

Current policy sucks. It reflects American corporate and individual addiction to a false mythology of personal safety through lethal personal armament. It is a policy stuck in a colonial past of little law enforcement and fear of tyranny and now reinforced further via a SC also stuck in a myopic view of the past. The policy degrades our society, polluting it with a lethal poison while filling the coffers of an industry very willing to make money with the clear correlation of collateral dead humans. In this regard, we are an embarrassment to the world of advanced nations.

Wow, that reads like a speech given by a tinpot dictator to the U.N. Assembly. Lots of emotion, not much else....

Are you dneal?

Of course he isn't. If he were, he would have used "emotional rhetoric", or perhaps "vitriol", like I did on the first page.

Looking back, congrats on beating Chuck in the race for the first person to take a shit in a thread (post #4). 37 pages later, you're still at it. Seems proof positive that you are indeed full of it.

C'mon, you can squeeze another out, Herr Forumsscheisser.

[TSherbs]

By saying that America is addicted to guns? Wow, you have an aversion to the truth on that topic. We're addicted to many things, guns included. I had dinner with a 30 year old the other night who said, longingly, that he hoped that it doesn't take too long this year to get his deer. He was wistful, longing, hungry (and I don't mean for food). He's been trying with a bow for a couple weeks. But now he gets to pull out the rifle. Likely won't take long in that mismatch. I live in a heavy-hunting area. You can hunt on private land that others own, unless it is posted. Same with fishing: in Maine you can cross any property (without damaging it) to "fish or fowl" on the water. Homeowners cannot deny access. Blessed be.

[TSherbs]

Allowing a deranged child to own a gun without training or restrictions, is not home protection or defending a "free state".


I am glad I can own a gun whether I do or not. I don't see myself carrying one on my hip. The last thing I want to do it shoot an innocent person. Given the harm trained law officers do with their issued firearms, there is no way I would not do worse. Apparently, they are trained to respond quickly and empty the clip.

In general, I don't think a deranged anyone should have access to firearms, regardless of their level of training, do you?

What makes you think you would shoot an innocent person?

What is the harm/good ratio of the cops, I've never really researched it. We know all the screwups are on the news, but what percentage is that of actions overall? You don't seem to have a high opinion of them (I'm rather neutral on them generally), but I'm pretty sure there is a little more to it than responding quickly and magdumping on things.

It sounds more like you don't trust yourself, and by extension, anyone with the responsible use of a firearm in a public setting.

You’re so wrong on so many of your assumptions that it’s not worth the effort to respond.

Yet you did respond, with nothing but an insult.

Curious.

EOC, you are in no position to even respond based on your past behavior.

Scott makes several inaccurate assumptions. Responding would take more effort at this point.

EoC did not make the remark that you quoted. ???

[dneal]

By saying that America is addicted to guns? Wow, you have an aversion to the truth on that topic.

That's not the topic of this thread. Are you trolling, or that obtuse? While I hope it's the former, I suspect it's the latter.

The political landscape is currently littered with initiatives, a week before an election. Blue states proposing restrictions and red states loosening them - and the best you can do is regurgitate your predictable off-topic bullshit.

Don't you have some "America is Racist" or "Democracy is Under Threat" op-ed to post somewhere? Hasn't some granny been sentenced for the most violent insurrection in American history?

[TSherbs]

Sorry, I'll yield to the high-minded discussion that I interrupted (19 pages in).

[dneal]

Sorry, I'll yield to the high-minded discussion that I interrupted (19 pages in).

19 pages in? That’s 18 more pages of you shitheads continuing to disrupt, following your lead in post 4. At least Lloyd and I worked a decent conversation in between the nonsense.