ForumGarden

Within a 24 hour period, two mass mudering sprees occurred. Totally out of control in USA! Well it happened again, in Dayton Ohio, after happening in El passo Texas mall, another mass shooting spree! At least 29 killed, and many injured!!! It seems it will never end!!! It can never end, due to the hundreds of thousands of all kinds of guns already existing out there in our world, unfortunately many of them are owned by wackos. Adding new laws, and or revising existing laws is futile! Wackos don't abide by laws anyway. It's tantamount to closing the barn doors, after all the horses have escaped! Consequently, there is no possible way for this madness to ever be stopped!!! Mass murdering sprees will perpetually continue.

cars;1524194 wrote: Within a 24 hour period, two mass mudering sprees occurred. Totally out of control in USA! Well it happened again, in Dayton Ohio, after happening in El passo Texas mall, another mass shooting spree! At least 29 killed, and many injured!!! It seems it will never end!!! It can never end, due to the hundreds of thousands of all kinds of guns already existing out there in our world, unfortunately many of them are owned by wackos. Adding new laws, and or revising existing laws is futile! Wackos don't abide by laws anyway. It's tantamount to closing the barn doors, after all the horses have escaped! Consequently, there is no possible way for this madness to ever be stopped!!! Mass murdering sprees will perpetually continue.


I do not accept that there is nothing to be done.

I don't know what can be done, but we can't just live with it.

That is unacceptable.

Certainly a proportion of these mass-murdering killers of strangers have a medical condition affecting their judgement. It can be an entirely physical illness such as a brain tumor. I'm not sure they're all blameworthy but there seems little compassion for those acting from such a disease. People do not get psychoses, whatever the underlying cause, for their personal amusement.

LarsMac;1524195 wrote: I do not accept that there is nothing to be done.

I don't know what can be done, but we can't just live with it.

That is unacceptable.


It continues still, and will continue with no end in sight! Drastic meaningful measures must be immediately taken! For starters, a publicized deterrent advisory all over the media. One that might make wackos think twice and slow down these type sprees. For Example: A POLICE Bulletin should/must be broadcast all over the media that states: All POLICE OFFICERS ARE ORDERED TO SHOOT DEAD ANY MASS SHOOTING MURDERER ON THE SPOT! The wackos just might think twice knowing that! None of this take into custody bull****! These sickos do not need to be analyzed, find out a motive, and that crap. And then have it cost a fortune in court costs to put them away, then costing $$$$$$ for their incarceration. Police Shoot them Dead on the spot, THE END! Some will say this is too harsh. Tell that to the families of the 248 mass shooting victims who have been killed so far since January 2019. See link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... es_in_2019

Seems to me now there can be little doubt that trump is inciting right wing racists to violence. Don't suppose he will stop though. keep expecting the NRA to start wearing blackshirts and hold torchlit parades.

If the threat of being killed in punishment for murder actually worked america would be the safest country on the planet.

I'm impressed by how reluctant Americans are to acknowledge mental incapacity. I think the preference is for every atrocity to be a deliberate considered act rather than to explore mental injury.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... in-damage/ might be a good starting place.

And https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/da ... th-penalty

Mental impairment plays a small part of the majority of mass shooting sprees here. The last mass killer's manifesto was said to want to kill as many Mexicans, Muslims and Blacks as possible. That's a hate crime, the one before that was a White Supremacists, wanting to kill people of color, another hate crime.

spot;1524203 wrote: I'm impressed by how reluctant Americans are to acknowledge mental incapacity. I think the preference is for every atrocity to be a deliberate considered act rather than to explore mental injury.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... in-damage/ might be a good starting place.

And https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/da ... th-penalty


That was an interesting read. Thanks.

The corporation G4S is front and centre responsible for the Orlando night club shooting.

I don't give a **** anymore you've been told time and time again what to do about your laws and none of you will listen.

I'm not sure if it's fake news or not but apparently Trump has said if the staff were armed it would never have happened......regardless whether he said that or not...even to assume an armed staff member or shopper take the law into their own hands have a think about that for a minute

Walmart sells firearms!

cars;1524204 wrote: Mental impairment plays a small part of the majority of mass shooting sprees here.


It's a matter of perspective and definition. If you define everyone whose mental framework would allow them to commit a mass shooting spree as suffering mental impairment then, by definition, every mass shooting spree is a result of mental impairment. If you adopt that definition then you can intervene before it happens, if you're prepared to invest the resources.

Of course, if you want to run your government on the cheap and you don't care much about a few thousand deaths a year, you can just blame the killers and save the investment. At that point the deaths become part of the entertainment industry (or "TV News" as it's called) rather than political morality.

You have a slight problem in America in that every American believes they have a constitutional right to end their life shooting up their target category of choice. If you want a national high score by race, gender, sexuality, religion, age or species then America's your place to do it. The last one is even legal sometimes.

A question for another thread, perhaps - how do you dismantle a national weaponry obsession. I have a measurable scale if that helps: what proportion of the films made in any given country features the use of a weapon. That's a constructive start. I suggest that in a country with a lower index, fewer mental impairments result in a mass shooting spree. Give that a fair thought before posting a knee-jerk denial.

cars;1524204 wrote: Mental impairment plays a small part of the majority of mass shooting sprees here. The last mass killer's manifesto was said to want to kill as many Mexicans, Muslims and Blacks as possible. That's a hate crime, the one before that was a White Supremacists, wanting to kill people of color, another hate crime.


There is a tendency to presume that one must be "Mentally impaired" or "mentally damaged" to set out on a course of destruction of other human beings.

Many of these people could probably go through any battery of psychological, or psychiatric tests and be found to be fully functional and quite "sane"

Their thought processes are working perfectly, but as we say in the computer world, GIGO - Garbage In Garbage Out

These people are fed a large amount of garbage philosophy, and their "processors" develop bizarre conclusions as to what they should do about the pain and disillusionment that they are experiencing.

So they may not be mentally impaired, but they are completely off the deep end, and are convinced that they must act to correct the problems that they perceive.

It really is not hard to convince a sane man that he must kill other human beings. America has trained an entire generation that there are human beings out there who must be killed, and has trained many to be prepared for the time when they must act.

The disconnect for some of these seems to be just who those people are, and when is the right time.

spot;1524200 wrote: Certainly a proportion of these mass-murdering killers of strangers have a medical condition affecting their judgement. It can be an entirely physical illness such as a brain tumor. I'm not sure they're all blameworthy but there seems little compassion for those acting from such a disease. People do not get psychoses, whatever the underlying cause, for their personal amusement.


My only question would be if they knew what they were doing is wrong.

tude dog;1524263 wrote: My only question would be if they knew what they were doing is wrong.


It might be more fruitful to wonder whether they're delusional. Perhaps they can be educated out of their delusion before they decide to kill.

I don't see any benefit in saying that once they've had their spree they're ogres but before they've had their spree they were exercising constitutional rights. The more that society screams about them after they're gone the more their emulators will see it as an attractive path.

The only time they can actually be stopped is before they start firing.

Meanwhile

Hey Jackass

Murder Capitals Of America: Baltimore On The List

spot;1524264 wrote:

The only time they can actually be stopped is before they start firing.


When somebody can figure that out it would be a breakthrough to solving many, many other social ills.

tude dog;1524266 wrote: When somebody can figure that out it would be a breakthrough to solving many, many other social ills.


They feel so self-important because the world at large pays so much attention to what they do.

What they do is, in any objective sense, trivial. The news media are driven by sensation and excitement so they play these events up to the hilt but the actual consequence is no more or less anguishing than an equivalent number of traffic deaths, and there's a hundred times more deaths by traffic than there are by psycho gamers.

Traffic reports don't garner mass audiences, shooters do. Watch a better class of news outlet.

Americans are no more prone to violence than anyone else on the planet. They are not any more prone to mental illness than anyone else. The biggest difference is that we don't allow our nutters to buy assault rifles. There is a shooting lobby and an active hunting scene I know gamekeeprs andthe like who have guns but anyone who wants to own a handgun or assault rifle is generally regarded as being slightly off their heads and probably shouldn't have one.

It#s a peculiarlyu american problem

gmc;1524278 wrote: Americans are no more prone to violence than anyone else on the planet. They are not any more prone to mental illness than anyone else.


If I make a table of "prone to violence" or "prone to mental illness" by nationality I'd expect both to show variability. Americans will have a ranking, Lithuanians will have a ranking, the French will have a ranking. Unless you're suggesting Americans are lowest-ranked on both tables there's definitely nationalities which are less prone.

Just keeping a rifle at home doesn't increase armed violence in society. Consider the Swiss at an average one per household. Rifles at home is the norm in Switzerland (or Norway, Finland, Iceland, take your pick) while armed violence is low. Your "peculiarly American problem" is clearly not gun ownership. I suggest it's the overwhelming terror felt by Americans as a whole when faced with their environment. Americans in general are **** scared of other Americans and who can blame them, so would I be if I lived there. That's why they call other Americans "criminals" and lock them up in droves.

I'll offer an alternative to the proportion of films with guns, how about this one. Violence increases in society as social inequality increases. Would anyone like to say that's not demonstrably true? Should I throw South Africa in as an example along with Switzerland, Norway, Finland, Iceland, take your pick? And is America noted for social equality?

spot;1524280 wrote: If I make a table of "prone to violence" or "prone to mental illness" by nationality I'd expect both to show variability. Americans will have a ranking, Lithuanians will have a ranking, the French will have a ranking. Unless you're suggesting Americans are lowest-ranked on both tables there's definitely nationalities which are less prone.


What is the typical American Nationality? You are better to tell me as I just don't know. We are a big country with differenct accents and traditions.

spot;1524280 wrote: Just keeping a rifle at home doesn't increase armed violence in society. Consider the Swiss. Rifles at home is the norm, armed violence is low. The "peculiarly American problem" is clearly not gun ownership. I suggest it's the overwhelming terror felt by Americans as a whole when faced with their environment.

tude dog;1524282 wrote: What is the typical American Nationality? You are better to tell me as I just don't know. We are a big country with differenct accents and traditions.


America is a nation. The nationality of Americans is American, that's what nationality means. You can take your pick whether to exclude resident non-citizens, that's a trivial borderline. Or non-whites, come to that, lots of patriot white-nationalist Americans would exclude them as non-American. How about excluding non-Christians?



eta: Technically, now that I've looked it up, all U.S. citizens have U.S. nationality status. Also, "Non-citizen nationality status refers only individuals who were born either in American Samoa or on Swains Island to parents who are not citizens of the United States - they have American nationality but they're not American Citizens. That's from the State Department U.S. Bureau of Consular Affairs.

I thought you were an American if born in America? That's why pregnant women from other countries go to America have their babies on American soil and then go home again. It's a big thing for Haitians. you are an American citizen and have that status if born on American soil. Unlike other countries where you have to register and prove citizenship.

I know in Australia you can't just be born here and be a citizen. Your parents have to prove citizenship as well. eg; japanese woman has her baby during a holiday to Australia. The baby is deemed Japanese, albeit born on Australian soil. In America you are entitled to citizenship just being born there. so in essence you have Americans dotted all over the world. Keeps their consulate very busy

spot;1524283 wrote: America is a nation. The nationality of Americans is American, that's what nationality means. You can take your pick whether to exclude resident non-citizens, that's a trivial borderline. Or non-whites, come to that, lots of patriot white-nationalist Americans would exclude them as non-American. How about excluding non-Christians?



eta: Technically, now that I've looked it up, all U.S. citizens have U.S. nationality status. Also, "Non-citizen nationality status refers only individuals who were born either in American Samoa or on Swains Island to parents who are not citizens of the United States - they have American nationality but they're not American Citizens. That's from the State Department U.S. Bureau of Consular Affairs.


I understand American citizenship, that we have in common and often that is where it stops. All too often we do not speak the same American English, share a respect for our nation's common History, laws or national traditions, etc.

tude dog;1524309 wrote: I understand American citizenship, that we have in common and often that is where it stops. All too often we do not speak the same American English, share a respect for our nation's common History, laws or national traditions, etc.
That's fine, we agree there's a category. The world is full of countries. By all means categorize by citizenship if you like rather than nationalities. We don't do that in Britain because we call ourselves subjects rather than citizens. The French are citizens, the Russians are comrades, the Scots Arra Peepul and the Germans are Ein Volk. The common category of "people from one country" is what I was listing people by when I used the word "nationality". I proposed one row in my table which could be labelled with gmc's term "Americans", as in "Americans owned an estimated 124 civilian firearms per hundred people in 2017". "People" there includes the under-tens and the Hoosiers. If they're Americans they're people in that row.

spot;1524280 wrote: If I make a table of "prone to violence" or "prone to mental illness" by nationality I'd expect both to show variability. Americans will have a ranking, Lithuanians will have a ranking, the French will have a ranking. Unless you're suggesting Americans are lowest-ranked on both tables there's definitely nationalities which are less prone.

Just keeping a rifle at home doesn't increase armed violence in society. Consider the Swiss at an average one per household. Rifles at home is the norm in Switzerland (or Norway, Finland, Iceland, take your pick) while armed violence is low. Your "peculiarly American problem" is clearly not gun ownership. I suggest it's the overwhelming terror felt by Americans as a whole when faced with their environment. Americans in general are **** scared of other Americans and who can blame them, so would I be if I lived there. That's why they call other Americans "criminals" and lock them up in droves.

I'll offer an alternative to the proportion of films with guns, how about this one. Violence increases in society as social inequality increases. Would anyone like to say that's not demonstrably true? Should I throw South Africa in as an example along with Switzerland, Norway, Finland, Iceland, take your pick? And is America noted for social equality?


Now that is more the standard measure and a far more defensible one - with social inequality come disenchantment and resentment and hate.

Bryn Mawr;1524314 wrote: Now that is more the standard measure and a far more defensible one - with social inequality come disenchantment and resentment and hate.


With a higher proportion of films with guns comes desensitization and an alarming desire to try it for real.

spot;1524315 wrote: With a higher proportion of films with guns comes desensitization and an alarming desire to try it for real.


With social inequality comes a sub-culture where you don't need films and video games to try it for real, the gangs provide the environment where such violence is the norm.

Muzzle the Media.

My gosh how many outrageous murders are copy cat murders.

The first guy who drove a car into a crowd and murdered people set a "trend", how many copy cat murders happened after that.

For the love of all that is good if the Media would stop giving step by step accounts of how these murderous fiends are committing their crimes I have to wonder if a few less copy cat crimes would happen. Definitely not a solution, but perhaps a step towards reducing the murders.

Of course I know we have the right to be informed but how much info is to much info when you splatter the grim details out there and the sicko's get ahold of it and try it for themselves.

the same old question Minks...does life imitate art or does art imitate life? I don't think it matters in the end. People do as they will

I am so glad I don't live in America ! It's as if that nation has returned to the days of the lawless 'West' when life was of little value and it seems that the quickest way out of a problem was to shoot first, and kill your 'enemy'. In the UK a gun ban was brought in some years ago. There was an outcry from those who had an interest in guns and of course the gun clubs. It caused many gun businesses to 'pack it in'.

However, licences can be obtained, provided various criteria were observed. Airguns are still available, and some of those are very powerful. There are still ways to get an illegal firearm, and of course this will always happen, but people in the UK cannot just walk around the nation carrying a firearm !

I really cannot see any possibility of an answer to the problem in America, that has become almost epidemic, except possibly a total ban on ALL firearms ! I cannot see this ever happening though, because it seems that most American adults own guns of one sort or another, particularly hand guns. It horrifies me that, in America, large military artillery can be obtained, but I suppose there is a certain amount of ruling over that. I really do not understand the American 'worship' of the gun. It is a machine for killing things, for killing people. Is there so much hate and fear in America that most citizens feel the desperate need to carry a gun ?

As I have said, I am glad I do not live in America.

G#Gill;1524382 wrote: However, licences can be obtained, provided various criteria were observed. Airguns are still available, and some of those are very powerful. There are still ways to get an illegal firearm, and of course this will always happen, but people in the UK cannot just walk around the nation carrying a firearm !


In the United Kingdom:

the number of rifles in civilian possession is reported to be 524,489

the number of shotguns in civilian possession is reported to be 1,537,967

the number of handguns in civilian possession is reported to be 14,501

https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/regi ... ed-kingdom

I take it "civilian" means not armed by reason of employment.

That's about 5% of households. About 2% of civilian adults in the UK live in a household with a firearm.



it seems that most American adults own guns of one sort or another


Just under one in three civilian American households possess a firearm of any sort. I assume the CBS article refers to non-uniformed households but I've not looked closely.



Is there so much hate and fear in America that most citizens feel the desperate need to carry a gun ?


I'm quite sure that most don't. I doubt even one in twenty civilian Americans carries a gun.

In America, over the years the powers to be decided to "close the majority of the "Mental Institutions" here. They were used to house those that needed mental help treatment and even many times incarceration. Today those same type people who were in those institutions needing help, are now walking free among us on our streets! Unfortunately, many of these people with Mental Issues have access to fire arms! America needs to wise up and not focus so much on Gun Control laws. And start opening up Mental Institutions again! It would be a hell of a lot better then changing some wording on existing Gun laws, and or creating new Gun laws.

I'm not entirely sure American mental institutions are particularly healthy places.

Freeman went on to develop a new form of lobotomy which dispensed with the need for a neurosurgeon. He hammered an ice pick-like instrument, an orbitoclast, through the eye socket and swept through the frontal lobes. The transorbital or "ice pick" lobotomy was done under local anesthesia or using electroconvulsive therapy to render the patient unconscious and could be performed in mental hospitals lacking surgical facilities. Such was Freeman's zeal that he began to travel around the nation in his own personal van, which he called his "lobotomobile", demonstrating the procedure in psychiatric hospitals. Freeman's patients included 19 children, one of whom was 4 years old.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosur ... th_America




I would find it unsettling to discover that these facilities were being re-introduced. I mistrust psychiatry. I think I prefer the murder sprees in the schools, nightclubs and malls, to be honest, they do less damage to fewer people and at least the perpetrator doesn't get paid.

Who needs firearms when you can have an ice-pick, a couple of orderlies to hold your victims down and clinical practice guidelines from the American Psychiatric Association.

spot;1524385 wrote: Who needs firearms when you can have an ice-pick, a couple of orderlies to hold your victims down and clinical practice guidelines from the American Psychiatric Association.


A bit more perhaps, from a BBC story today?

In 1952, The American Psychiatric Association classified homosexuality as a "sociopathic personality disturbance" in the first edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), the listing of known psychiatric disorders.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49390011




And society trusts these power-crazed people? Still? Seriously? Anyone specializing in the area should be locked away for "sociopathic personality disturbance", it would be poetic justice.

spot;1524526 wrote: A bit more perhaps, from a BBC story today?



And society trusts these power-crazed people? Still? Seriously? Anyone specializing in the area should be locked away for "sociopathic personality disturbance", it would be poetic justice.


Yeah, these places were dumpsters for disobedient and independent-minded women and children mostly. The crap neoliberals come up with is as startling as neoconservatives these days.

I suppose it's about past time the divide within the democratic party came boiling up. The more it does, the uglier neoliberalism is shown to be.

spot;152452 wrote: In 1952,


Citizens of the formerly Great state of California could buy and carry firearms of their choice. I remember my mom brutally attacked after work and my dad bought a gun for her to carry.

Back then in the mid-'50s citizens could exercise their natural, civil and Constitutional rights without worrying about mass murder.

tude dog;1524528 wrote: Back then in the mid-'50s citizens could exercise their natural, civil and Constitutional rights without worrying about mass murder.


How do you come to the conclusion that guns are either "natural" or "civil"?

Ahso!;1524529 wrote: How do you come to the conclusion that guns are either "natural" or "civil"?


The natural right should be obvious.

The civil right has to do with protection from the abuse of government.

Ahso!;1524527 wrote: Yeah, these places were dumpsters for disobedient and independent-minded women and children mostly. The crap neoliberals come up with is as startling as neoconservatives these days.


I have no idea why you think left or right wing are appropriate labels for the kind of people who classified homosexuality as a "sociopathic personality disturbance" all the way into the seventies. I can't see the slightest excuse to call them neoliberal, whatever a neoliberal or even a classical liberal might suggest to your mind. Could we perhaps agree instead to describe them as authoritarian? Is that a good word for them? I dislike authoritarians.

tude dog;1524530 wrote: The natural right should be obvious.No, I need you to explain it to me

tude dog;1524530 wrote: The civil rights has to do with protection from the abuse of government.Civil Rights are legal protections which has nothing to do with firearms. Your argument appears to be that firearms scare others into being polite to the firearm owner. That is not what a Civil Right is.

Your best argument is the constitutional one, and that is valid only because of a skewed interpretation of the constitution that happens to be valid only due to its popularity.

spot;1524531 wrote: I have no idea why you think left or right wing are appropriate labels for the kind of people who classified homosexuality as a "sociopathic personality disturbance" all the way into the seventies. I can't see the slightest excuse to call them neoliberal, whatever a neoliberal or even a classical liberal might suggest to your mind. Could we perhaps agree instead to describe them as authoritarian? Is that a good word for them? I dislike authoritarians.I was referring to today's political attitude that has been expressed in the thread.

Ahso!;1524533 wrote: I was referring to today's political attitude that has been expressed in the thread.


It's easy to get fixated on whatever immediate battle is taking everyone's attention.

I'd quite like to redefine the centre ground. Do we all share the same society, the same economy, the same legal environment, or do we live in enclaves. I think you can build a political spectrum out of the answers you might get to that question, but it's not related to left or right wing tribalism.

spot;1524534 wrote: It's easy to get fixated on whatever immediate battle is taking everyone's attention.

I'd quite like to redefine the centre ground. Do we all share the same society, the same economy, the same legal environment, or do we live in enclaves. I think you can build a political spectrum out of the answers you might get to that question, but it's not related to left or right wing tribalism.I'm not sure that's the middle ground in this sort of discussion. We're discussing people with sociopathic tendencies where the mind is, in fact, a kind of enclave, or better yet, prison. Not that that applies to any group either you or I have mentioned.

It's possible you and I are engaging in two very different discussions.

Ahso!;1524529 wrote: How do you come to the conclusion that guns are either "natural"


For the purpose of self-defense, an undeniably natural right.

Ahso!;1524529 wrote: or "civil"?


It should be plain when after the Civil War gun control was first introduced in former Conferedats sates to hinder newly freed slaves from defending themselves from "night Riders etc intent on murdering/terrorizing newly freedmen.

Yup, Americans are nothing less than going all out. Yet to be outdone.

Sorry, Despite Gun-Control Advocates' Claims, U.S. Isn't The Worst Country For Mass Shootings

So who's tops? Surprisingly, Norway is, with an outlier mass shooting death rate of 1.888 per million (high no doubt because of the rifle assault by political extremist Anders Brevik that claimed 77 lives in 2011). No. 2 is Serbia, at just 0.381, followed by France at 0.347, Macedonia at 0.337, and Albania at 0.206. Slovakia, Finland, Belgium, and Czech Republic all follow. Then comes the U.S., at No. 11, with a death rate of 0.089.

That's not all. There were also 27% more casualties from 2009 to 2015 per mass shooting incident in the European Union than in the U.S.

"There were 16 cases where at least 15 people were killed," the study said. "Out of those cases, four were in the United States, two in Germany, France, and the United Kingdom."

"But the U.S. has a population four times greater than Germany's and five times the U.K.'s, so on a per-capita basis the U.S. ranks low in comparison — actually, those two countries would have had a frequency of attacks 1.96 (Germany) and 2.46 (UK) times higher."

Yes, the U.S. rate is still high, and nothing to be proud of. But it's not the highest in the developed world. Not by a long shot.

Yet, some today propose banning rifles, in particular AR-15s, because they've been used in a number of mass killings. It's important to note however that, according to FBI crime data cited this week by the Daily Caller, deaths by knives in the U.S. outnumber deaths by rifles by five to 1: In 2016, 1,604 people were killed by knives and other cutting instruments, while 374 were killed by rifles.

So is it not fair to ask: If we're banning rifles, why not knives, too?

tude dog;1524557 wrote: For the purpose of self-defense, an undeniably natural right.That's like calling a fork a nutrient because it delivers food to the mouth.

"Natural rights are rights granted to all people by nature or God that cannot be denied or restricted by any government or individual. Natural rights are often said to be granted to people by “natural law. Legal rights are rights granted by governments or legal systems."

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 0HZxFUFuKm

tude dog;1524557 wrote: For the purpose of self-defense, an undeniably natural right.



It should be plain when after the Civil War gun control was first introduced in former Conferedats sates to hinder newly freed slaves from defending themselves from "night Riders etc intent on murdering/terrorizing newly freedmen.


You're using this due to the word "civil" being part of "Civil War"? Very revealing.

Are you familiar with Dunning-Krugar Effect? https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/dunni ... GIQAvD_BwE

Ahso!;1524570 wrote: That's like calling a fork a nutrient because it delivers food to the mouth.

"Natural rights are rights granted to all people by nature or God that cannot be denied or restricted by any government or individual. Natural rights are often said to be granted to people by “natural law. Legal rights are rights granted by governments or legal systems."

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 0HZxFUFuKm


Thanks for claiifying how laws are not a necessarly a reflectin of Natural Rights.

Ahso!;1524571 wrote: You're using this due to the word "civil" being part of "Civil War"? Very revealing.

Are you familiar with Dunning-Krugar Effect? https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/dunni ... GIQAvD_BwE


Actually, I was talking AFTER the Civil War.

tude dog;1524578 wrote: Actually, I was talking AFTER the Civil War.


Actually, It doesn't matter, you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. I'll give it one go, and try not to make it too long or complicated.

Natural Rights are those rights that say that since one exists, no one has the right to take that away from them.....PERIOD. END OF EXPLANATION!

Civil Rights are those rights that give one permission to participate in the social structure of a society and partake of the protections and shared endowments through the legal system and welfare system.

Constitutional Rights are those rights that protect legal citizens from government overreach.

Guns, per se, arguably, only fall within the Constitutional Rights category.

One is not born with a gun attached to the body, so that negates the Natural Rights category, and as far as Civil Rights is concerned, your argument can only be that in addition to the legal system, your gun is a backup to assure you can participate within the society, but it is not a part of one's Civil Rights, per se. That you can purchase a firearm also has little if anything to do with Civil Rights the same as buying toilet paper has little if anything to do with it.

Do you understand that?