Parkland, FL 2/14/18 School Shooting, 17 Killed (Another mass shooting!)

[aygart]

I think they are referring to this

I agree with him that we can't arbitrarily take away peoples rights without due process. Do you disagree with that or do you believe the law did not do that?

Link to the law? Was it challenged in court?

It was repealed before it actually went into effect.
https://www.ssa.gov/regulations/NPRM--Implementation%20of%20the%20NICS%20Improvement%20Amendments%20Act%20of%202007%20%28NIAA%29.PDF

If you want a question answered then maybe explain why you feel that the law is problematic and how you feel a better when to regulate guns based upon mental health would be. I wouldn't have an issue with that and I don't think @ChaimMoskowitz would either. Until you can come up with a proposal of how a good way to regulate based on mental health would be we need to assume that the repetition of "mental health, mental health" is merely a foil. PUOSU!

[aygart]

I made a very specific claim, purposefully.

This claim was in response to those claiming that banning certain types of guns, or all guns, is common sense and therefore a good thing to try. They brought no proof beyond "common sense".

If you agree, and witnessed - as you claim, that guns can save lives, why do I need to prove my claim beyond "common sense"?

I don't. I've shown that common sense allows the claim that guns save lives. Therefore restricting them will harm innocent civilians.

First prove that your proposal to restrict the amount or types of guns won't harm innocent civilians, then I'll prove my point.

If common sense is the standard for your preferred policy choices, I won't accept a double standard for my policy choices.

Part of common sense is to use logical arguments. You have not.
You have brought cases where handguns have saved lives and then used that to show that assault weapons should not be banned. That is a fallacy of composition.

[Dan]

The same people that say we should copy Israel for security lessons at airports, etc. are against copying many of Israel's common sense gun laws...

The 2nd amendment can be reconciled with many of them while stopping the vast majority of these tragedies.

Alas when it comes to guns, all common sense goes out the window.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

I made a very specific claim, purposefully.

This claim was in response to those claiming that banning certain types of guns, or all guns, is common sense and therefore a good thing to try. They brought no proof beyond "common sense".

If you agree, and witnessed - as you claim, that guns can save lives, why do I need to prove my claim beyond "common sense"?

I don't. I've shown that common sense allows the claim that guns save lives. Therefore restricting them will harm innocent civilians.

First prove that your proposal to restrict the amount or types of guns won't harm innocent civilians, then I'll prove my point.

If common sense is the standard for your preferred policy choices, I won't accept a double standard for my policy choices.

If your claim was that guns save many lives then I agree with you 100%. Instead you said guns save more lives than murders committed with them. That is not true.

I said it was common sense to ban AR's so lets not blame others. An AR is an assault rifle and you and I both know it. It can be used for other things like hunting and target practice but that is not its main purpose. Banning it would not effect any hunter one bit. I have hunted my whole life. Not one person I know has ever hunted with an AR. Many of them do own them.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

The same people that say we should copy Israel for security lessons at airports, etc. are against copying many of Israel's common sense gun laws...

The 2nd amendment can be reconciled with many of them while stopping the vast majority of these tragedies.

Alas when it comes to guns, all common sense goes out the window.

There was a reason I ask questions about Israel's gun laws in this thread. 

[avromie7]

I think they are referring to thisIf you want a question answered then maybe explain why you feel that the law is problematic and how you feel a better when to regulate guns based upon mental health would be. I wouldn't have an issue with that and I don't think @ChaimMoskowitz would either. Until you can come up with a proposal of how a good way to regulate based on mental health would be we need to assume that the repetition of "mental health, mental health" is merely a foil. PUOSU!

That is the what I was referring to, and both times that I asked CM to answer, I quoted that discussion so he can easily seen which question I was referring to.

I explained that the issue with the law, is that it takes away rights from people without due process, where there is no proof that they are a danger to themselves or others, other than the fact that they were classified a certain way by the government. In saying that the law should've been repealed as it was, the onus is not on me to come up with a better solution (that's very important, but it doesn't take away from the fact that the law was wrong).

[aygart]

https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/964615627079069697

https://twitter.com/lachlan/status/964631690340700160

[aygart]

That is the what I was referring to, and both times that I asked CM to answer, I quoted that discussion so he can easily seen which question I was referring to.

I explained that the issue with the law, is that it takes away rights from people without due process, where there is no proof that they are a danger to themselves or others, other than the fact that they were classified a certain way by the government. In saying that the law should've been repealed as it was, the onus is not on me to come up with a better solution (that's very important, but it doesn't take away from the fact that the law was wrong).

But if you say mental health as a solution then the onus is on you to say exactly what solution regarding mental health you find acceptable. Otherwise it is only a foil to really say that you accept no solution at all.

PUOSU!

[aygart]

[avromie7]

Otherwise you are going to have to provide 30k+ more links to prove your point just for last year alone.

While every life lost by suicide is terrible, I don't think they should be included in this equation. Someone deciding to take their own life should not be a reason to stop people from owning guns (yes we should try to help those people and even take away THEIR guns)

[avromie7]

Thats a separate discussion, unrelated to the law we are discussing

[ChaimMoskowitz]

While every life lost by suicide is terrible, I don't think they should be included in this equation. Someone deciding to take their own life should not be a reason to stop people from owning guns (yes we should try to help those people and even take away THEIR guns)

This has nothing to do with people owning guns. It was just to correct a statement so we are on the same page. You cant throw things out there an expect them to go unchallenged.

[ssvarc]

Part of common sense is to use logical arguments. You have not.
You have brought cases where handguns have saved lives and then used that to show that assault weapons should not be banned. That is a fallacy of composition.

I brought twelve links, which actually lead to eleven stories, as two were regarding the same incident. (Different news agencies and different town names caused this error.)

Only three mention explicitly what type of gun was used: handguns.

In three more stories, despite there being no explicit mention, it's likely, based either on the wording and/or where the incident took place, that it was a handgun.

That leaves us with five reports of people using guns to protect themselves in their homes, where the type of gun used isn't mentioned.

Yet somehow you claim that I've only brought cases of handguns saving lives.

This is what passes for honest, reasoned discussion in these parts.

Sad.

[aygart]

Thats a separate discussion, unrelated to the law we are discussing

I assume this was a response to me. If there are issues with due process those can be fixed. Would you be supportive of a law similar to that one with an appeal process?

[aygart]

I brought twelve links, which actually lead to eleven stories, as two were regarding the same incident. (Different news agencies and different town names caused this error.)

Only three mention explicitly what type of gun was used: handguns.

In three more stories, despite there being no explicit mention, it's likely, based either on the wording and/or where the incident took place, that it was a handgun.

That leaves us with five reports of people using guns to protect themselves in their homes, where the type of gun used isn't mentioned.

Yet somehow you claim that I've only brought cases of handguns saving lives.

This is what passes for honest, reasoned discussion in these parts.

Sad.

Huh? Because it doesn't say that it was a handgun we should assume that it was an assault rifle? argumentum ad ignorantiam
If we don't know that it was an assault rifle then how does it show anything? You are trying to show something about assault rifles saving lives and have not done so.

[gingyguy]

I brought twelve links, which actually lead to eleven stories, as two were regarding the same incident. (Different news agencies and different town names caused this error.)

Only three mention explicitly what type of gun was used: handguns.

In three more stories, despite there being no explicit mention, it's likely, based either on the wording and/or where the incident took place, that it was a handgun.

That leaves us with five reports of people using guns to protect themselves in their homes, where the type of gun used isn't mentioned.

Yet somehow you claim that I've only brought cases of handguns saving lives.

This is what passes for honest, reasoned discussion in these parts.

Sad.

i guess we're all assuming that its obvious that an assault rifle is far from being the weapon of choice in a home invasion , and that people that do choose to defend their homes will be using a more sensible weapon.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

i guess we're all assuming that its obvious that an assault rifle is far from being the weapon of choice in a home invasion , and that people that do choose to defend their homes will be using a more sensible weapon.

I prefer a BAR but a need a special permit for that. 

[gingyguy]

I prefer a BAR but a need a special permit for that. 

do they even make them anymore?

[ssvarc]

If your claim was that guns save many lives then I agree with you 100%. Instead you said guns save more lives than murders committed with them. That is not true.

I said it was common sense to ban AR's so lets not blame others. An AR is an assault rifle and you and I both know it. It can be used for other things like hunting and target practice but that is not its main purpose. Banning it would not effect any hunter one bit. I have hunted my whole life. Not one person I know has ever hunted with an AR. Many of them do own them.

That's not my claim. I'll quote myself again.

...many more innocent citizens lives are saved by guns every year then are murdered by them...

I don't care about felon on felon violence (e.g. one drug gang killing another drug gang over territory) or suicide in the context of removing ways for innocent civilians protecting themselves.

That's my claim and I've given the common sense basis for it.

As for your "common sense" about AR's...

AR's are used in crime in miniscule proportion to handguns.

Vast majority of mass shootings in US are done with handguns.

Vast majority of mass casualty shootings (four or more deaths) in US are with handguns.

The deadliest school shooting in the US was done with handguns. (It was also the deadliest school shooting in the world not committed by terrorists.)

To be blunt, the only thing "common sense" here is that you don't have any on the topic of dangers from AR's.

As for your claims about hunting with AR's, please.

1. Hunters do use AR's.

 https://youtu.be/dVMpg3_Ry40

2. For some hunters or types of hunts, AR's are preferred.

http://time.com/4390506/gun-control-ar-15-semiautomatic-rifles/

(Claims to superior knowledge notwithstanding...)

3. Hunting isn't the reason for 2A.

4. We don't have to prove our reasons for exercising Constitutional rights. Same as someone using 1A doesn't need to prove that his free speech has utility.

You, who want to restrict the right, need to prove that there's an overwhelming public harm that can't be met any other reasonable way, that won't cause more harm if restricted.

[gingyguy]

That's not my claim. I'll quote myself again.
I don't care about felon on felon violence (e.g. one drug gang killing another drug gang over territory) or suicide in the context of removing ways for innocent civilians protecting themselves.

That's my claim and I've given the common sense basis for it.

As for your "common sense" about AR's...

AR's are used in crime in miniscule proportion to handguns.

Vast majority of mass shootings in US are done with handguns.

Vast majority of mass casualty shootings (four or more deaths) in US are with handguns.

The deadliest school shooting in the US was done with handguns. (It was also the deadliest school shooting in the world not committed by terrorists.)

To be blunt, the only thing "common sense" here is that you don't have any on the topic of dangers from AR's.

As for your claims about hunting with AR's, please.

1. Hunters do use AR's.

 https://youtu.be/dVMpg3_Ry40

2. For some hunters or types of hunts, AR's are preferred.

http://time.com/4390506/gun-control-ar-15-semiautomatic-rifles/

(Claims to superior knowledge notwithstanding...)

3. Hunting isn't the reason for 2A.

4. We don't have to prove our reasons for exercising Constitutional rights. Same as someone using 1A doesn't need to prove that his free speech has utility.

You, who want to restrict the right, need to prove that there's an overwhelming public harm that can't be met any other reasonable way, that won't cause more harm if restricted.

lol notice how the hunters were doing a very poor job hunting.
those pigs just wont die!