"Well Regulated Militia"

[Belsnickel]

(08-07-2019, 10:21 AM)GMDino Wrote: VA seems even more strict than PA.

35 years ago I had to wait almost a year to get my license because I didn't go to the public school so I couldn't take the drivers ed course until the following summer after my 16th birthday.  It wasn't required but it helped with insurance discounts so my parents made me wait.

Other than that two weeks of driving with the instructor my practice was driving back and forth from work with my dad and taking my mom to the store every chance I got.

We did a cone/driving course test with a state trooper and that was it.

My son just got his a couple months ago. It was the aforementioned minimum six months wait, proof of hours driven (so many at night, so many in inclement weather) then an actual road test that followed parallel parking at the DMV.  If you failed the parking part you didn't even get to take the road test.

If you're a minor in Virginia, you must take a behind-the-wheel driving course. Over 18, there is only a 60 day waiting period with a learner's, then a road test, but no course requirement. That being said, there are enough adults taking the course that there is a business in it for the driving schools to have adult specific ones. My wife, who is three years older than me, decided to finally get her license this year after only having a learner's. I told her I wasn't going to be the one teaching her to drive because that would just be stressful for both of us. So we found out the local driving school here does pretty good business with courses for adults.

This is why I am pretty up-to-speed on all of this.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-07-2019, 10:27 AM)hollodero Wrote: Well, as far as I can see I still have the freedom to switch it off. I might read it wrong, but this rather is about making the implementation of that technology compulsory, not so much using it.

Override, yes, not switch off.  I know that may come off as parsing hairs but there is an important distinction.  Let me posit this, do you think that speed infraction fines will be raised when this technology is implemented?  After all, you have to override the system to exceed the speed limit, making it a conscious decision to break the law.

To get back on the topic, at least somewhat, any government oversight of the private lives of its citizens needs to be approached with a huge dose of skepticism.  Law abiding adults should be treated as just that until they prove they are not. 

[hollodero]

(08-07-2019, 11:27 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Override, yes, not switch off.  I know that may come off as parsing hairs but there is an important distinction.  Let me posit this, do you think that speed infraction fines will be raised when this technology is implemented?  After all, you have to override the system to exceed the speed limit, making it a conscious decision to break the law.

To get back on the topic, at least somewhat, any government oversight of the private lives of its citizens needs to be approached with a huge dose of skepticism.  Law abiding adults should be treated as just that until they prove they are not. 

I get your point. And sure, fines will rise. I'm all for that though. Since personal freedom ends when it's endangering another person's freedom (or health or life). People speeding do that in an irresponsible manner. And as far as I see it, the government as an organizer of the state-wide community has a right to intervene in that instances, including more severe fines for an act (like speeding) that does kill many people a year.

Now how well that translates to gun issues, I don't know. This usually is the point where I'd demand a gun licence akin to a driver's licence, with a somewhat strict aptitude check. But that to many seems to collide with a constitutional right (or at least connect it with expenses), which I'd be fine with. (As I'd be with voter ID laws, but enough side topics.)

[JustWinBaby]

Get the DEA and ICE on this right away.....if anyone can keep guns out of this country, it's those guys.

[BmorePat87]

(08-06-2019, 01:22 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: In 2017....


~14,500 gun homicides.
~37,000 car accident deaths.
~47,000 suicide deaths.
~55,600 influenza & pneumonia deaths.
~83,500 diabetes deaths.

But which do you think got the most attention and coverage? The fear has been formented. Even though once you take gang-on-gang violence out of the gun homicides it becomes even lower.

Meanwhile we all still drive cars (most of the time 1 person to a car to clog the roads), we don't have any expanded efforts to curb suicides, we don't make flu shots mandatory, and SNAP cards can still be used to buy soda and candy.

People have been flooded by coverage and told how they need to be scared, so they are. Just look at sharks... the US averages ~1 death by shark attack a year. How many people are scared of it, though?

A couple thoughts on why people harp on mass shootings.

The first is the very idea that someone can easily obtain a weapon capable of mowing down dozens in minutes and then seeing it happen causes a far greater emotional reaction than an accident or an illness. 

There's also the discrepancy in funding. 



Sepsis kills about as many people as guns but funding to research gun violence is 0.7% that as funding on sepsis. 

I'd argue a lot of resources go towards lowering car accidents. A lot goes into promoting flu prevention too. Suicide prevention funding is inadequate, but it's also tied into gun violence and there's a lot of efforts, especially in schools, to preventing it. 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(08-08-2019, 12:27 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: A couple thoughts on why people harp on mass shootings.

The first is the very idea that someone can easily obtain a weapon capable of mowing down dozens in minutes and then seeing it happen causes a far greater emotional reaction than an accident or an illness. 

There's also the discrepancy in funding. 



Sepsis kills about as many people as guns but funding to research gun violence is 0.7% that as funding on sepsis. 

I'd argue a lot of resources go towards lowering car accidents. A lot goes into promoting flu prevention too. Suicide prevention funding is inadequate, but it's also tied into gun violence and there's a lot of efforts, especially in schools, to preventing it. 

My thoughts on why people harp on it is perfectly represented in how your graph misrepresents gun violence.

Your graph is including suicides and accidents in "gun violence".

Why is that, I wonder? Why isn't drowning called "water violence", falls called "gravity violence", or vehicles called "vehicle violence"? Because there isn't an effort to play them up as much as possible. There isn't a single other category listed on your graph that has "violence" attached to it, even though that point includes people accidentally shooting themselves, or intentionally shooting themselves. Nobody ever has used the term "rope violence" in order to categorize people hanging themselves.

I also dispute the funding amount as well on your graph, as New York City, LA, and Chicago spent 7.84 billion dollars on funding their police forces in 2017. Expand that to every other city, expand it to include the ATFE (F being Firearms) funding, only $20 million of all that money goes towards researching ending firearm deaths? BS, man. They are constantly researching how to better catch criminals before they attack. Or how to better track gang members. That is also research on how to stop it.

It's a really bad graph.

[BmorePat87]

(08-08-2019, 12:19 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: My thoughts on why people harp on it is perfectly represented in how your graph misrepresents gun violence.

Your graph is including suicides and accidents in "gun violence".

Why is that, I wonder? Why isn't drowning called "water violence", falls called "gravity violence", or vehicles called "vehicle violence"? Because there isn't an effort to play them up as much as possible. There isn't a single other category listed on your graph that has "violence" attached to it, even though that point includes people accidentally shooting themselves, or intentionally shooting themselves. Nobody ever has used the term "rope violence" in order to categorize people hanging themselves.

I also dispute the funding amount as well on your graph, as New York City, LA, and Chicago spent 7.84 billion dollars on funding their police forces in 2017. Expand that to every other city, expand it to include the ATFE (F being Firearms) funding, only $20 million of all that money goes towards researching ending firearm deaths? BS, man. They are constantly researching how to better catch criminals before they attack. Or how to better track gang members. That is also research on how to stop it.

It's a really bad graph.

By definition suicide is violence, so at best you're arguing that these numbers should not include accidental gun deaths. That doesn't change the fact that all gun related deaths need to be researched at similar levels to other causes of deaths. 

With regards to your belief that funding must be higher because cops get a lot of money... I am not sure I follow the logic there nor do I think your belief is enough to dismiss the findings of a study. Quantifiable data tends to be better than someone's hunch. 

It's a really bad argument. 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(08-08-2019, 01:34 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: By definition suicide is violence, so at best you're arguing that these numbers should not include accidental gun deaths. That doesn't change the fact that all gun related deaths need to be researched at similar levels to other causes of deaths. 

With regards to your belief that funding must be higher because cops get a lot of money... I am not sure I follow the logic there nor do I think your belief is enough to dismiss the findings of a study. Quantifiable data tends to be better than someone's hunch. 

It's a really bad argument. 

How is suicide by definition violence? That is nowhere in the definition and makes zero sense.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/australian-scientist-104-dies-travel-switzerland-assisted-suicide/story?id=55067324
104-year-old man decides it is time for him to go and wants to go out on his own terms. He travels to a country where a doctor can just put him into a gentle sleep that he will never wake up from.

That's a suicide. It's not violent... yet by your "definition" of suicide it is.

So I am saying that any time a person CHOOSES to end their own life, it's not violence and shouldn't be counted as such. Otherwise Japan is leading the world in Volcano "Violence" and Rope "Violence". The only reason anyone ever would include suicides in a gun violence number is to inflate it to push their agenda.

How are you not getting the logic that police funding is also gun violence prevention funding? 
https://home.chicagopolice.org/community/expanded-anti-violence-initiative/

How do you think they know where and how to target places with their efforts? Who to target? Where the guns are coming from? Research. How do they pay for that research? With their funding budgets. Just because it was "a study" you pulled it from, doesn't mean it was correct. I can go onto the internet and find you where two studies say one thing will both cause and prevent cancer.

- - - - - -

Yours was a really bad counter-argument.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-08-2019, 01:52 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: How is suicide by definition violence? That is nowhere in the definition and makes zero sense.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/australian-scientist-104-dies-travel-switzerland-assisted-suicide/story?id=55067324
104-year-old man decides it is time for him to go and wants to go out on his own terms. He travels to a country where a doctor can just put him into a gentle sleep that he will never wake up from.

That's a suicide. It's not violent... yet by your "definition" of suicide it is.

So I am saying that any time a person CHOOSES to end their own life, it's not violence and shouldn't be counted as such. Otherwise Japan is leading the world in Volcano "Violence" and Rope "Violence". The only reason anyone ever would include suicides in a gun violence number is to inflate it to push their agenda.

How are you not getting the logic that police funding is also gun violence prevention funding? 
https://home.chicagopolice.org/community/expanded-anti-violence-initiative/

How do you think they know where and how to target places with their efforts? Who to target? Where the guns are coming from? Research. How do they pay for that research? With their funding budgets. Just because it was "a study" you pulled it from, doesn't mean it was correct. I can go onto the internet and find you where two studies say one thing will both cause and prevent cancer.

- - - - - -

Yours was a really bad counter-argument.

I have to agree.  Bmore normally makes cogent, logical points, but this is a poor argument on his part.  Any attempt to lump suicides committed with a  firearm into the category of "gun violence" is a disingenuous attempt to artificially inflate the number of people killed by firearms.  Firearms certainly make a suicide attempt more likely to succeed and I agree with Bmore that suicide, by any means, needs to be studied vigorously.  However, suicides are not violence and this is objectively true.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-08-2019, 01:52 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: How is suicide by definition violence? That is nowhere in the definition and makes zero sense.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/australian-scientist-104-dies-travel-switzerland-assisted-suicide/story?id=55067324
104-year-old man decides it is time for him to go and wants to go out on his own terms. He travels to a country where a doctor can just put him into a gentle sleep that he will never wake up from.

That's a suicide. It's not violent... yet by your "definition" of suicide it is.

So I am saying that any time a person CHOOSES to end their own life, it's not violence and shouldn't be counted as such. Otherwise Japan is leading the world in Volcano "Violence" and Rope "Violence". The only reason anyone ever would include suicides in a gun violence number is to inflate it to push their agenda.

How are you not getting the logic that police funding is also gun violence prevention funding? 
https://home.chicagopolice.org/community/expanded-anti-violence-initiative/

How do you think they know where and how to target places with their efforts? Who to target? Where the guns are coming from? Research. How do they pay for that research? With their funding budgets. Just because it was "a study" you pulled it from, doesn't mean it was correct. I can go onto the internet and find you where two studies say one thing will both cause and prevent cancer.

- - - - - -

Yours was a really bad counter-argument.

(08-08-2019, 01:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have to agree.  Bmore normally makes cogent, logical points, but this is a poor argument on his part.  Any attempt to lump suicides committed with a  firearm into the category of "gun violence" is a disingenuous attempt to artificially inflate the number of people killed by firearms.  Firearms certainly make a suicide attempt more likely to succeed and I agree with Bmore that suicide, by any means, needs to be studied vigorously.  However, suicides are not violence and this is objectively true.

To be fair, suicide by gunshot does seem to me to be a violent way to commit suicide, though I do agree with the point about not lumping in suicides with generic "violent" numbers.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(08-08-2019, 02:40 PM)PhilHos Wrote: To be fair, suicide by gunshot does seem to me to be a violent way to commit suicide, though I do agree with the point about not lumping in suicides with generic "violent" numbers.

Yeah, it is a violent way to go, but there aren't too many non-violent ways. So, violent, but I wouldn't classify it as "violence". Same page as you.

Otherwise it would be like including masturbation if someone asks how many times you've had sex. Nobody counts it if you're doing it alone. 

[*PhilHos*]

(08-08-2019, 03:05 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Yeah, it is a violent way to go, but there aren't too many non-violent ways. So, violent, but I wouldn't classify it as "violence". Same page as you.

Otherwise it would be like including masturbation if someone asks how many times you've had sex. Nobody counts it if you're doing it alone. 

So you're saying jj is still a virgin? 

I'm kidding, jj! Calm down.

[BmorePat87]

(08-08-2019, 01:52 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: How is suicide by definition violence? That is nowhere in the definition and makes zero sense.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/australian-scientist-104-dies-travel-switzerland-assisted-suicide/story?id=55067324
104-year-old man decides it is time for him to go and wants to go out on his own terms. He travels to a country where a doctor can just put him into a gentle sleep that he will never wake up from.

That's a suicide. It's not violent... yet by your "definition" of suicide it is.

So I am saying that any time a person CHOOSES to end their own life, it's not violence and shouldn't be counted as such. Otherwise Japan is leading the world in Volcano "Violence" and Rope "Violence". The only reason anyone ever would include suicides in a gun violence number is to inflate it to push their agenda.

Violence is defined by MW as "the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy". Using a gun to kill yourself fits that definition.

Quote:How are you not getting the logic that police funding is also gun violence prevention funding? 
https://home.chicagopolice.org/community/expanded-anti-violence-initiative/

Prevention funding =/= research funding

Quote:How do you think they know where and how to target places with their efforts? Who to target? Where the guns are coming from? Research. How do they pay for that research? With their funding budgets. Just because it was "a study" you pulled it from, doesn't mean it was correct. I can go onto the internet and find you where two studies say one thing will both cause and prevent cancer.

again, your wild guesses are meaningless compared to quantifiable data. 
- - - - - -

Quote:Yours was a really bad counter-argument.

I'll take this as a compliment given your body of work. If you have an actual argument to make that doesn't rely on your hunches, I'm open to hearing it. If you're just going to ramble on again about how statistics are wrong because you think they are, do everyone a favor and don't. It's a waste of my time to click the notification.

(08-08-2019, 01:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have to agree.  Bmore normally makes cogent, logical points, but this is a poor argument on his part.  Any attempt to lump suicides committed with a  firearm into the category of "gun violence" is a disingenuous attempt to artificially inflate the number of people killed by firearms.  Firearms certainly make a suicide attempt more likely to succeed and I agree with Bmore that suicide, by any means, needs to be studied vigorously.  However, suicides are not violence and this is objectively true.

Suicide is a use of force to destroy, which fits the definition of violence. You can argue that gun suicides and gun homicides are different in nature and should not be lumped together in research or more detailed statistics, but to suggest it is not a form of violence because it is self directed unequivocally wrong. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-08-2019, 03:46 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Suicide is a use of force to destroy, which fits the definition of violence. You can argue that gun suicides and gun homicides are different in nature and should not be lumped together in research or more detailed statistics, but to suggest it is not a form of violence because it is self directed unequivocally wrong. 

This has been asked already, but is using pills to suicide by overdose violence?  Using a rope to hang yourself?  Running your car's engine in a confined space?  If the answer to any of these questions is no then your conclusion is not a sustainable one.

[BmorePat87]

(08-08-2019, 04:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This has been asked already, but is using pills to suicide by overdose violence?  Using a rope to hang yourself?  Running your car's engine in a confined space?  If the answer to any of these questions is no then your conclusion is not a sustainable one.

I would characterize any of those actions used against someone else as violence, so if used against yourself, then yes it is also violence.

But I have to wonder why an argument that started as "suicide by gun is not violence" has turned into "suicide by pills is not violence". I'm not sure what anyone hopes to gain by trying to force this conversation away from guns other than to admit that they really had nothing to argue in the first place.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-08-2019, 05:01 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I would characterize any of those actions used against someone else as violence, so if used against yourself, then yes it is also violence.

But I have to wonder why an argument that started as "suicide by gun is not violence" has turned into "suicide by pills is not violence". I'm not sure what anyone hopes to gain by trying to force this conversation away from guns other than to admit that they really had nothing to argue in the first place.

Seeing as how I've been active in this thread the whole time addressing the topic of firearms I don't think that's a fair accusation to make.  You think suicide is an act of violence, I do not.  We are engaging in a semantic argument that, you are correct, has nothing to do with firearms.  Therefore we can agree to disagree on this semantic argument and move on.

[BmorePat87]

(08-08-2019, 08:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Seeing as how I've been active in this thread the whole time addressing the topic of firearms I don't think that's a fair accusation to make.  You think suicide is an act of violence, I do not.  We are engaging in a semantic argument that, you are correct, has nothing to do with firearms.  Therefore we can agree to disagree on this semantic argument and move on.

Neither of us moved this from firearms suicide to other types of suicide, but somehow we fell into some trap talking semantics of all suicide. 

I know from past threads we have had a similar take on gun control in the wake of shootings: would the proposal have actually changed anything in this case?

That's why the only real policy I am advocating for is increasing research for gun violence. Let's find out more and use that to create policy. I understand some take issue with lumping suicides and homicides together, but at the end of the day I think funding research for all forms of gun deaths is important. I don't care how it is categorized or labeled. 

[BmorePat87]

Serious discussions are taking place between House and Senate leadership on meaningful Background Checks. I have also been speaking to the NRA, and others, so that their very strong views can be fully represented and respected. Guns should not be placed in the hands of.....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 9, 2019

Don't worry, the special interest group that spends millions a year influencing government will get a seat at the table so that their "strong views are respected".

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-09-2019, 11:03 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote:

Serious discussions are taking place between House and Senate leadership on meaningful Background Checks. I have also been speaking to the NRA, and others, so that their very strong views can be fully represented and respected. Guns should not be placed in the hands of.....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 9, 2019

Don't worry, the special interest group that spends millions a year influencing government will get a seat at the table so that their "strong views are respected".

I don't really get the vitriol directed at the NRA.  They are basically self funded and don't really spend that much money lobbying or on campaign contributions.  There are numerous anti-gun groups funded directly by billionaires.  Why are they ok and the NRA is the Antichrist? 

[*Nately120*]

Aren't most mentally ill people non-violent? And aren't the mentally ill more likely to be the victims of crimes than the perpetrators? Maybe I"m going overboard for the sake of argument (again) but isn't it possible that the mentally ill (as the common American understands mental illness, ie, not that much) are getting railroaded on this one?

It must be strange to be, say a responsible and medicated person with a mental illness who hasn't killed or harmed anyone, watching people declare your type as being so dangerous that your rights need to be taken away. Also, what diagnosed mental illness did this shooter have? Sure, there is a crazy aspect to doing stuff like this, but that doesn't mean every crazy person needs to be denied constitutional rights due to some guilt by association.

THere is my hot take of the day. The mentally ill are poorly understood and poorly represented enough within this country that we are going to gleefully tie them to mass murderers and take away their rights.