Yet Another Massacre of Innocents

[Bob]

Not the same article but has some of the same information. I'm still puzzled why it can't be found (if I was the suspicious type, I'd guess somebody pressured CNN into deleting it).

[KhorTose]

Come on Bob, "pressured CNN to delete it", and your evidence. As YOU know the 1939 Supreme court decision was about short barrel shotguns and even though they upheld the government ban based on tax and commerce cause they also affirmed that the 2nd Amendment meant all civilians could be armed with the guns in use of the day.

The last is not a fact but Justice Burger's opinion. Justice Birger is the same man that concurred in Bowers vs Hardrwick that said homosexual sex could be outlawed by a state. Fortunately overturned by a latter court. His language then: "infamous crime against nature", worse than rape, and "a crime not fit to be named." Burger concluded: "To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching."

[Rogie]

From TW's link:

 

"In 1934, a comprehensive law controlling guns was passed by Congress. It was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1939, in U.S. v. Miller, in which Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s solicitor general, Robert H. Jackson, argued that the Second Amendment is “restricted to the keeping and bearing of arms by the people collectively for their common defense and security,” meaning the army. Furthermore, Jackson said, the language of the amendment makes clear that the right “is not one which may be utilized for private purposes, but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state.” The Supreme Court agreed, unanimously."

 

Surely all Americans understand this - it's just common sense, isn't it? From my standpoint as a Brit with only a patchy knowledge of American history, if somebody had asked me for my interpretation of the second amendment, that is more or less what I would have said. Now I know 100% what it means and I fail to see how anybody could successfully twist it to suit their own purposes.

[Bob]

My point previously, Khun Khortose, is that I disagreed with how the Supreme Court has changed its interpretation of the Second Amendment and essentially changed it from a states' right (as referenced in the Miller unanimous decision noted by Rogie immediately above) to a personal right that ended up exploding the number of citizens possessing handguns. If somebody (Scalia, for example?) is going to argue that we should stay with the original intent of a constitutional provision, then the first 170 years of interpretation and use ought to count for something (in legal parlance, we call that "stare decisis"). Immediately after adoption of the constitution and for 170 plus years after, states passed laws regulating the use and possession of guns and the Supreme Court consistently upheld those laws. That whole scenario changed after the massive lobbying efforts of the NRA and a new interpretation (contrary to 170 years of prior rulings) arose which has led to what we have today. I'm no fan at all of the right-winger Warren Berger but I find his comments interesting in that his words also express the frustration many feel as to how we could possibly end up with the damn-near "almost anything goes" philosophy of the modern Supreme Court regarding guns.

 

As to the CNN article, I have no clue why it can't be found. As I said, I read it yesterday morning on its site, linked it here, and the link worked immediately after I posted it. I've never had that happen before (I've always been able to find an article there) and I'm surprised that it disappeared so soon after being first posted on its site.

[Guest fountainhall]

Another shooting with three dead. This time, a 41-year old police county constable, Brian Bachmann, was serving an eviction notice in “a pleasant neighborhood” a few blocks from Texas A&M University. The man in the house opened fire killing Bachmann. In a shootout which followed after the arrival of the police, a bystander was shot dead as well as the gunman.

 

A comment from a neighbour –

 

It's pretty surreal to happen in a small town like this

 

The LA Times article adds this of the shooter's Facebook page –

 

Caffall's wall photos include snapshots of guns.

 

"Just picked it up today, can't wait to try it out on the range," he posted on June 7, 2011, referring to a gun.

 

Next to a photo of a gun labeled "gunbroker.com Geranimo," he posted on May 24, 2011: "I won an auction. This will be coming to me soon. I can't wait to try it out."

 

In a May 13, 2011, post, Caffall wrote: "I just got a new toy! It's a Russian Mosin Nagant ... I'll be at the gun range as much as I can."

http://www.latimes.c...0,3503339.story

[KhorTose]

Just another one of the .02%.

 

In the meantime:

 

UK motorways have turned into demolition derby sites as another car crash involving 11 vehicles occurred on one of the country’s busiest roads. It follows Friday’s massive pile-up that claimed seven lives and left 51 injured.

­UK motorways have turned into demolition derby sites as another car crash involving 11 vehicles occurred on one of the country’s busiest roads. It follows Friday’s massive pile-up that claimed seven lives and left 51 injured.

Six people were injured in Sunday’s accident in the county of Lancashire; fortunately, there have been no fatalities. None of the injured are in a life-threatening condition, police say.

The cause of the crash is still unknown.

The accident forced authorities temporally to close north and southbound section of the motorway for the clean-up operation.

Friday’s pile-up on M5 motorway that occurred in southern England’s county of Somerset involved 34 vehicles. Seven drivers and passengers died as crashed vehicles caught fire in the accident.

The casualty list could still increase, as many of those injured are still in critical condition. Should this happen the crash will be the worst in British history.

The vehicles have been removed overnight, but the motorway remains closed, police said.

The accident renewed debate about motorway safety. Just weeks before, the government announced plans to raise the speed limit to 80mph, according to The Guardian.

 

Yes, by all means the UK definitely sounds like it needs to deregulate the motorways by raising the speed limit to 80MPH (125kph). In the meantime, we will keep your locking blade knives.

[Guest fountainhall]

Dear Khortose, as I said earlier, I will not continue the pro/anti gun arguments. As far as your recent post is concerned, however, it would, with all respect, have been useful to provide a link or a context. I posted an item of news from the last couple of days. The Somerset crash you refer to took place in November 2011. You might also have noted the investigation found that the primary cause of the crash was fog. No excuse, of course, as drivers were probably driving too fast under the prevailing conditions.

 

http://en.wikipedia...._motorway_crash

 

But you seem very keen to equate gun deaths with road deaths, when in fact there is no known association (as far as I am aware). Yet, let’s compare the known facts, which are -

 

US highway deaths in 2009 = 33,963

http://www.usatoday....eath-rate_N.htm

 

UK highway deaths in 2009 = 2,222

http://www.whatcar.c...in-2009/250689/

 

I selected this year only because it is easy to find statistics. I doubt if any other recent year shows much difference. Given that the USA has approx. 5 times the population of the UK, the UK very clearly has far fewer car/vehicle deaths per head of population than the USA. (Sorry, but I did not bring up the car and road death analogy!)

 

[Rogie]

.

The accident renewed debate about motorway safety. Just weeks before, the government announced plans to raise the speed limit to 80mph, according to The Guardian.

 

Yes, by all means the UK definitely sounds like it needs to deregulate the motorways by raising the speed limit to 80MPH (125kph).

 

The accident referred to above and by FH was on Guy Fawkes night (5th November) and there was a fireworks party at a rugby club sited quite close to the motorway. I don't know whether that was a contributory factor or not. Be that as it may, those kind of accidents are of the highest rarity nowadays in Britain. I could be wrong but there do seem to be less foggy days now compared to 30 or 40 years ago (not to be confused with smog - fog + smoke - which was a big problem in some of Britain's cities when heavy industry was much more prevalent - burning of fossil fuels being the reason I suppose).

 

I am in favour of raising the limit on motorways to 80 mph. Many cars go even faster as it stands now. I tend to drive at 65 - 70 mph and I'm overtaken all time by cars travelling at 80 or 90 or even more. Drivers know full well fuel economy is worse at those speeds but that's no deterrent to many of those driving large heavy thirsty vehicles, even at UKP1.30 a litre for petrol (gas) and even more for diesel fuel. That's around US$9 a gallon.

 

Whilst many drivers on motorways drive well over 80 mph and far too close to the vehicle in front, there is one thing British drivers do respect.

 

With very few exceptions, they do not overtake on the inside!

 

That must save quite a few lives.

[KhorTose]

The argument is still the same. When someone kills with a car, a knife, poison, a club, etc. it is always the person that is at fault. Kill with a gun and then it is the gun to blame. Will never make sense to me, especially when far more die by car then gun.

 

Fountainhall, I won't look it up, but I am willing to bet we have more then 5 times your roadways and and more then five times your cars

[Bob]

The argument is still the same. When someone kills with a car, a knife, poison, a club, etc. it is always the person that is at fault. Kill with a gun and then it is the gun to blame. Will never make sense to me, especially when far more die by car then gun.

 

Can't help you if you can't distinguish between a product that happens to kill (like a car - which has substantial personal and societal benefits and is designed as best it can not to kill) and a product designed to kill.

 

And rather sad to me that we worry more about driver's education and licensing a person to drive a car than educating and licensing the people that own/use guns.

 

By the way, it's perfectly legal for a state to outlaw anybody carrying a knife which has a blade that exceeds "x" number of inches but the states cannot legally stop most citizens from carrying around a loaded gun. Now that makes sense, doesn't it? (NOT)

[KhorTose]

 

By the way, it's perfectly legal for a state to outlaw anybody carrying a knife which has a blade that exceeds "x" number of inches but the states cannot legally stop most citizens from carrying around a loaded gun. Now that makes sense, doesn't it? (NOT)

 

A permit to carry a concealed weapon can include a big knife is some states, and yes it is a permit which means in almost all cases you have undergone an FBI background check, local PD check and paid between $60 to $180 dollars to obtain said permit. I do think there is one state where you do not need a permit, but will have to look it up. In the meantime, in California, Wisconsin and some other states you cannot get a concealed permit, but you can carry a loaded gun strapped to your hip, along with your knife of over three inches. That doesn't maake a lot of sense to me.

Please let me repeat, I never said you could not regulate guns, and I emphasize that I would even be for it, if there was some kind of iron clad guarentee that it will not lead to confiscation like England and Australia. So far all the left has ever done is try to regulate guns without giving this guarentee. The US are in a no compromise position, and the ability to achieve compromise seems to be gone from American thinking by both the right and the left, by the religious and the non regilious, and by the moralist who knows what is best for us from both sides of the fence.

[Bob]

Please let me repeat, I never said you could not regulate guns, and I emphasize that I would even be for it, if there was some kind of iron clad guarentee that it will not lead to confiscation like England and Australia.

 

I'm elated that you appear to support some regulation of guns and, if that's the case, all we're discussing is what's reasonable regulation. On the other hand, the NRA fights every single suggested regulation change based on the theory that giving in to any regulation means the government will take away all guns - and your caveat is right out of their playbook.

 

Meantime, nothing's changed here in the states and the next massacre will likely be in the newsvery soon. And nothing's being done about it at all. Pretty sad.

[KhorTose]

I'm elated that you appear to support some regulation of guns and, if that's the case, all we're discussing is what's reasonable regulation. On the other hand, the NRA fights every single suggested regulation change based on the theory that giving in to any regulation means the government will take away all guns - and your caveat is right out of their playbook.

 

Meantime, nothing's changed here in the states and the next massacre will likely be in the newsvery soon. And nothing's being done about it at all. Pretty sad.

 

Yes, it is taken from the NRA's playbook, and I said on three different occasions that I think it is perfectly legal to regulate guns. You must keep skipping over that part. However, without some king of guarantee, I am with the NRA. You want to shut them out, make an amendment or law that says "no guns can ever be taken away from responsible citizens with no criminal record or mental condition, and any and all registry of guns will be destroyed should the US ever be invaded or the elected government removed by coup. This is just a very brief part of what would have to be a comprehensive law that would set out guidelines for what types of guns could be regulated, and what types of ammo---without setting any amounts on how many guns or ammo you can have. This law cannot be overturned without a 66% vote of the nation, or two thirds of the states by popular voting.

 

Then I would gladly vote for a ban on assault rifles, talon ammo, and automatic weapons to name three. Why no ban on quantity of guns and ammo? Well take me, for instance. When I left i had a total of 13 weapon, mostly pistols, but long guns and shotguns, and over 6000 rounds of ammo. I used each and every weapon I had, and bought quantity of ammo because it is cheaper that way. An average trip to the target range with the four or five guns I choose to shoot that day will go through about 500 rounds of ammo. I have many friends that have only one to three guns and several friends who have more then 20. They are all responsible citizens that do no harm. It's funny that owning and shooting these guns have not made them killers. Call it a cliche all you want, but guns are not, nor never will be the reason people kill. If someone grabs a gun in a fit or anger and kills their wife, etc. well without the gun they would grab the andiron or vase and smash their skull in--and you know it happens. Sorry, you will never ever get me to believe an inanimate object is the root of evil.

[Bob]

Your logic escapes me. Nobody's claiming a gun kills anybody by itself or has any inherent good or evil in it. It's what the product is used for....and, regardless of some good uses (if we want to call legal hunting and target practice "good" uses), guns were invented and have been used primarily for one use throughout history, i.e. killing/wounding other living beings.

 

We apparently agree that guns ought to be regulated but not many of the effective attempts at regulation are legal (at least according to the Supreme Court). Washington DC, the prior murder capitol of the US, passed a law banning the possession of handguns but the Supremes struck that down under the guise of a Second Amendment violation.

 

A few of the massacres we've had in the states in the last decade or two involved guns with clips holding 30+ shells. That would be a nice start to ban the sale of any weapon that holds more than 5 cartridges/shells (in most states, it's illegal to possess such a gun while hunting anyway and, normally, self-defense doesn't usually require you to hold off an army). And it's currently illegal everywhere for anyone other than the military and police to possess a fully automatic weapon. The "talon" bullets you mention are simply hollow-point bullets (I think "Black Talon" is the brand name) that expand when hitting a target and are actually preferred for both hunting and by police forces (so, if you have to shoot somebody, it puts them down and doesn't go through them to hit an unintended target).

[KhorTose]

Your logic escapes me. Nobody's claiming a gun kills anybody by itself or has any inherent good or evil in it. It's what the product is used for....and, regardless of some good uses (if we want to call legal hunting and target practice "good" uses), guns were invented and have been used primarily for one use throughout history, i.e. killing/wounding other living beings.

 

Bob, that is exactly what you are claiming and to justify the claim you are putting guns into a special catagory of only used for killing. Kill with any inanimate object and it is the person, but somehow the gun is all by itself evil and to blame for killing. Okay, allow me to talk about your special category. We have 5000+ years of recorded history, and in that 5000+ year we have writing of people using poisons to kill other people. If the truth could be know, probably more people in the history of mankind have been killed by poison then guns. Now here is a substance that is made by nature, and in some cases men, for the sole purpose of killing. Yes, poisons do have other uses, but just like your claim for guns there sole purpose is to kill--be it bugs, animals or people. Yet even when we have mass killings using poisons we seem to recognize that it is the person and not the substance. This is the reason i can walk into any grocery store in America and buy over 100 poisons, and no one would bat an eye or require documentation. Yet, you would do so for guns, and you say my logic is fuzzy.

[Bob]

Au contraire, Khun KT. We heavily regulate nasty chemicals and we should as they are extremely dangerous when used in the wrong way. I advocate the same heavy regulation for other dangerous items (ie.g., guns) especially if those items were designed to cause death or severe injury in the first place.

 

Any reasonable society regulates dangerous activities and products and the only issue or argument is how much regulation is needed. You, due to the fear that all guns will be taken away from everybody (a proposition nobody here has ever advocated), support the notion of allowing too many idiots to possess and use lethal and easily-concealable weapons and one result of that concept is a horrendous murder rate. That's not acceptable collateral damage in my view.

[KhorTose]

Au contraire, Khun KT. We heavily regulate nasty chemicals and we should as they are extremely dangerous when used in the wrong way.

 

I would sure like to know where you got this. I can go into the grocery store and buy rat poison which contain poisons like brodificoum, diphacinone, warfarin, bromadiolone, etc. that will cause you to bleed to death. Strychnine.is in most pesticides and can be bought both in grocery stores and nurseries. Want cynadide by the ton? Just go to Alibaba.com and you can buy all you want and have it shipped to the USA, or go to a number of industrial plants where it is used for bronze, or !!!food processing!!!. Hehe, check out your table salt as it is used to prevent the caking of salt. The 1000000 pklus illegal pharmacies operating in India, etc. will gladly sell you the pills. Regulation my ass. You can also get Amatoxins from mushrooms in your garden, or make cyanide from you apples. What regulations are you talking about. While you think about his, give me some caster Oil and I will make you some Ricin tea. , No body regulates these nasty substances, and if they do it is only a few states. Why, because only people use these things to kill other people, and the substance is not the problem.

[ChristianPFC]

I can only speak for Germany, but here we have a wide range of laws regulating the purchase, selling, use, disposal... of various dangerous chemicals. Medicine has to be prescribed by a doctor, there are laws that regulate and control the use of chemicals that can be used to make drugs or chemical weapons, and so on. Glycol contains a chemical that makes it taste bitter, sleeping pills are now safe regarding over-use for suicide, and so on.