Less than 13 hours mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio

[HeIsRisen2018]

Gun supporters do not claim that carrying will eliminate the problem. Never have.

Exactly,.. it just sort of sounded like that was what you were claiming in your last post. My apologies, apparently it was just a simple case of miscommunication at least on my part.

 

[Michael74]

Texas has a lot of wide open spaces, and it can be quite awhile before law enforcement can get to remote ranches to help. I can understand why many Texans want to carry their own protection. In Dayton, the police were right there, and responded within a minute. Different areas of the country may need different approaches. What works best for people on remote ranches is not necessarily what works best for people in crowded cities.

 

[HeIsRisen2018]

Texas has a lot of wide open spaces, and it can be quite awhile before law enforcement can get to remote ranches to help. I can understand why many Texans want to carry their own protection. In Dayton, the police were right there, and responded within a minute. Different areas of the country may need different approaches. What works best for people on remote ranches is not necessarily what works best for people in crowded cities.

Hey Michael! First of all just to let you and everybody else know that my news will be posted later today so stay tuned! Second of all, you brought up another interesting point. Although guns will never be taken away from police, the gunman from Dayton was stopped almost immediately after he started firing. If he wasn't gunned down, the number of deaths might have and probably would have been much greater.

 

[Michael74]

Researchers point out that other countries have similar rates of mental illness but a small fraction of America’s gun deaths. Similarly, video games are widespread in Europe and Asia, yet their rates of gun deaths are much lower than that in the United States.

Video games and mental illness are not the reason. According to research. The mentally ill are 3.6 times as likely to exhibit violent behavior as gen pop, but don't do the mass shooting thing in other countries. Some mentally ill tend to be victims of violence (23 times the risk compared to gen pop). Victims of violence sometimes seek revenge.

 

[Michael74]

An estimated 49.5% of adolescents had any mental disorder.

Startling.

 

[Bull of the Woods]

Here's an interesting twist. I'm thinking about the latest incident at a Walmart in Texas. Before I point it out, I will say that I am not an advocate for more gun laws or restrictions of any kind whatsoever. In fact, I believe that many of the gun laws we have now violate the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution because they do infringe on our right to keep and bear arms.

But what I found interesting about this whole incident is that we proponents of gun rights often use the argument that carrying self-defense arms is one way to counter such events. But now consider this. This incident happened in Texas. Texas residents are the third highest state per capita for carry permit holders and as such why was there nobody able to respond to the shooter in defense? I hate to admit it but this really seems to fly in the face of our pro-gun argument that armed citizens would affect the result by reducing the damage.

Wonder why militias are the central purpose for the 2nd amendment?
First, are all gun owners members of a state or national militia?
Could the "people's right to bear arms" have meant a collective "people" meaning the right of states to arm a militia rather than an untouchable individual right?
Shortly after the Bill of Rights were adopted, for instance, local law prohibited guns in Boston. Hotbed of the Revolution and still populated with patriots and folks like the Adams in the area. No mention of it being unconstitutional was made I believe.

 

[HeIsRisen2018]

Wonder why militias are the central purpose for the 2nd amendment?
First, are all gun owners members of a state or national militia?
Could the "people's right to bear arms" have meant a collective "people" meaning the right of states to arm a militia rather than an untouchable individual right?
Shortly after the Bill of Rights were adopted, for instance, local law prohibited guns in Boston. Hotbed of the Revolution and still populated with patriots and folks like the Adams in the area. No mention of it being unconstitutional was made I believe.

So, if I gathered all of what you said correctly,.. are you opposing gun ownership? I don't care if you are I'm just curious.

 

[JohnDB]

Just as a bit of wisdom and truth that I firmly believe:

Destruction is easy and quick no matter who, what and often when. Construction is difficult and takes a lot of time and effort.

It doesn't matter if it's sand castles or reinforced concrete or lives... destruction is easy and quick. Nothing can ever change that.
Making a life, a sand castle or a useful structure takes a lot of time and energy.

I didn't make the rules, I just know what they are.

 

[HeIsRisen2018]

Just as a bit of wisdom and truth that I firmly believe:

Destruction is easy and quick no matter who, what and often when. Construction is difficult and takes a lot of time and effort.

It doesn't matter if it's sand castles or reinforced concrete or lives... destruction is easy and quick. Nothing can ever change that.
Making a life, a sand castle or a useful structure takes a lot of time and energy.

I didn't make the rules, I just know what they are.

I think I understand what you're getting at, that making a new life is a lot more difficult than taking a life and unfortunately that's true and a very sad fact. Also, I agree with the sandcastles part as well. If you want them just right it definitely is a lot harder than it looks.

 

[Bull of the Woods]

So, if I gathered all of what you said correctly,.. are you opposing gun ownership? I don't care if you are I'm just curious.

No. I have a couple. Mine are for very rarely, like every five years or so, shooting a fox if it is picking off chickens and won't let it go. Just .22, and not semi automatics.
I am just not afraid of the very idea of some serious looking into that end of the problem. But I am very primarily a Christian whose citizenship is the kingdom of God and coincidentally legally a citizen of the US.

 

[HeIsRisen2018]

No. I have a couple. Mine are for very rarely, like every five years or so, shooting a fox if it is picking off chickens and won't let it go. Just .22, and not semi automatics.
I am just not afraid of the very idea of some serious looking into that end of the problem. But I am very primarily a Christian whose citizenship is the kingdom of God and coincidentally legally a citizen of the US.

So meaning you would only use yours for hunting and nothing else then?

 

[Bull of the Woods]

So meaning you would only use yours for hunting and nothing else then?

Do you mean would I shoot an intruder? I don't know. Mine I keep locked up and I probably wouldn't have time. I live a quarter mile off a very small rural road. My dog lives outside and would have to be shot or clubbed by an intruder. I have had some folks come down my driveway at night, I suspect thinking they had found a farm lane to go drinking. I go out with a baseball bat on those occasions and between me and the dog people leave.
I can't say I have a plan to use a gun on anyone. If I did I probably wouldn't buy something made to hold off an army.

 

[Michael74]

Could the "people's right to bear arms" have meant a collective "people" meaning the right of states to arm a militia rather than an untouchable individual right?

Back when the Constitution was written, many people taught their children how to hunt for survival. Thus they already knew how to use a rifle when they joined the revolutionary army. Something that was important back then, because the Continental Congress had few resources, and could not adequately train their troops. You can train recruits the basics of how to use a rifle with a few weeks training, but it takes years of practice to become seriously adept at combat with them. Thus years of practice hunting on the family farm was valuable to the Continental Army. Continental troops made far better use of local terrain than British troops did, having years of practice moving through local woods and such.

The situation is a bit different today, since war machines now determine who wins modern combat. Rifles are still toted by infantry, but without backup from planes, tanks, artillery and such, rifle militia alone cannot hope to stand up to front line mechanized infantry. Militia can still fight a long guerilla war, if the attacker has scruples, and is not willing to launch a genocidal attack on civilian populations that don't cooperate.

 

[Bull of the Woods]

Actually the continental Army relied a lot on the the technique of lining up in a tight formation and firing into a tight formation where the necessity of a deadly aim was not necessary. Speed of reloading was imperative though, and could be taught relatively quickly.

 

[Michael74]

Actually the continental Army relied a lot on the the technique of lining up in a tight formation and firing into a tight formation...

They tried that a few times, it didn't work out so well for the Americans. In the 2 major battles considered turning points, a much different strategy was used. At Lexington, militia fired at British troops marching on the road from behind cover. At Yorktown, the French fleet prevented reinforcements, while Washington used long range artillery to slowly reduce the British fort to dust.

Most of the resistance though was out in forested wilderness. Britain occupied major cities, but was unable to control rural areas. Local militias fired at the British from forests, and other natural cover. Basically, a long guerilla war that slowly wore down the British public's patience with the war. When France, Spain, and the Netherlands intervened on the American side, the British public had enough. Year after year of local militia sniping at British soldiers in rural areas is what did the trick. American line infantry did not generally fare well versus British line infantry.

 

[Bull of the Woods]

Lexington and Concorde were skirmishes before the Continental Army was formed. The myth that the Americans fault mostly guerilla style arose a lot from that event.
But anyway I don't know that the 2nd Amendment intent is completely how many envision it today.

 

[Michael74]

When the Constitution was written, the writers' experience was that a despot could take control of cities, but well armed militia in rural areas could fight a long guerilla war that would gradually wear down the despot. Hopefully returning the USA to a republic. Thus the ban on disarming rural militias. Back then rural militias tended to be a close knit band of neighbors who elected their own officers. A local self defense group.

 

[Michael74]

It was a different time. Today, people dial 911, and wait for the police to arrive. Back then, if a local brave got irate and gathered together a war party to attack settlers, they didn't dial 911. The local militia grabbed their muskets and defended their homes. No one was coming to rescue them. Not in time anyway.

The writers of the Constitution didn't believe in a strong standing army. When the War of 1812 started, the US had few troops ready to meet it. Only the fact that Britain's main army was engaged fighting Napoleon prevented them from recapturing major US cities. Even so, the British captured DC, and zapped the White House. The strategy back then really was to depend on local militias to resist tyranny long enough for a new army to be trained and equipped.

Fortunately for the US, Britain decided to make friends with America after their experience of trying to simultaneously fight in Europe and America. They decided that preventing Europe from uniting into a power that could threaten them was more important than retaking their former colonies. They adopted a deliberate policy of friendship with the USA, which bore fruit for them when the US came to their rescue in WWI and WWII.

 

[Bull of the Woods]

When the Constitution was written, the writers' experience was that a despot could take control of cities, but well armed militia in rural areas could fight a long guerilla war that would gradually wear down the despot. Hopefully returning the USA to a republic. Thus the ban on disarming rural militias. Back then rural militias tended to be a close knit band of neighbors who elected their own officers. A local self defense group.

I don't believe they were thinking they were securing the country against an internal despot. That sounds like a more modern justification.

 

[Michael74]

Of course, the situation is different today. The US lavishes more resources on its standing army than the next several global powers combined. Local neighborhood militia self defense groups are no longer a significant part of the national defense plan if invaded by a foreign despot. Some theorize that local militias could resist if a local despot took control of the USA. Thus their rationalization for keeping them armed.