[lpkruege1]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Amazon.com

The weapons Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, and others considered as "arms" are far different from the arms of 2022.

But then again women weren't allowed to vote, you were allowed to own slaves, dueling was allowed to settle arguments, people were paid pennies, people rode horses, need I go on?

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Well, two things.

1. There is no evidenced that punishment is a deterrent to crimes. Countless studies have shown that.

2. And how many of those lives saved by guns were BECAUSE the other guy had a gun? Sort of a self fulfilling solution. We need guns because people have guns. And I go back, no other country in the world has this problem. Not other county in the world has the guns we do. I understand correlation does not equal causation - but it also doesn't negate the possibility.

And in both England and Australia following mass shootings laws were pass controlling guns and the mass shooting virtually stop. Another data point.

Read the post again. I said to put "fear" into the Perp so they won't commit the crime to begin with. And that was referring to "putting the murderers down" when they commit murder. Saying "punishment" when I did not say that, is putting words not said into the equation.
When someone consistently compares our country with others, it makes me want to suggest they migrate to such a grand place. Our country is not like those other countries; it's unique. Folks want to come here. Very few of our U.S. citizens wish to reside elsewhere and do not leave permanently. Of course, some will argue and say "I know someone that moved." Some folks argue just to argue, instead of suggesting reasonable solutions. I made reasonable solutions to a persistent problem.
It's very simple:
1. Physical security for the children
2. Specialized training for law enforcement
3. Execute (kill) those that commit murder

Unreasonable ideas:
1. Ban semi-automatic weapons
2. Ban guns
3. Age limits
None of these "unreasonable" ideas will protect the children.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by mikeycereal

This I 100% agree with. Been saying this since the 3rd copycat mass shooter way back when. The media loves to dramatize these to the max. Displaying victim emotions and portraying the shooters as more powerful than they are. They aren't really, just messed up wimps who are wannabe tough guys with a gun to shoot kids and people praying in churches. Then the media just sloshes on the cheese, which feeds into the minds of the sick anti-socials who were already glorifying other shooters. The shooter stories should be small and in the back page somewhere, no mention of shooter's name or back history. It won't happen though sadly. The media will still go after their pulitzer and happily collect their clicks.

Bingo!

Your point about "copycat" has been irrefutably proven by independent studies many times. Whether some people like to believe it or not, sensationalizing these crimes DOES result in more like crimes. Anyone can read that data with just a few mouse clicks. In other words, we have within our ability the way to cut back significantly on these crimes. We've had that ability ever since "copycat" crimes became a thing.

But we don't.

Which, of course, begs the question: why not?

The only logical answer to that question is one that is too terrible to consider, but inevitably the same answer pops up. If the powers-that-be DON'T attempt to employ a method that is statistically certain to reduce the killing--then there must be, in the minds of at least some, a number of dead kids that is acceptable if those dead kids lead to that goal, which is apparently a no-gun society.

All we need to do is to require factual reporting on such incidents and ban the sensationalizing. By doing so we could cut back on the number of fatalities by these copycats by possibly half. Possibly more. Media of course would try to hide behind the First Amendment but there is legal precedent; if there is a PROVABLE link between media sensationalizing and resultant harm, media can be held responsible for that. But to date I've not even seen the whisper of a movement to limit media over-sensationalizing. It CAN be done. It SHOULD be done.

Or do we just go around chasing shadows and write these kids off as martyrs to a worthy (in the estimation of some, apparently) cause?

[Larchap49]

Originally Posted by A-2-56

I think that you were very much correct until the end. The founders believed that the citizenry should be armed so as to be capable of setting the government right again when they have become corrupt or out of line with the Constitution.
They wanted the government to fear the prople not the other way around. The standing army that we have now serves against that purpose.
We keep it because we use it for global policing either good or bad can be argued.

Not only our government. Many have mentioned history. Here's some history. When questioned after WW2 the leader of the Imperial Japanese Military told the Emperor when asked why not invade the west coast of America. He stated because there will be a person with a gun behind every tree. That is a historical fact and another valid reason for an armed populace.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by Larchap49

Not only our government. Many have mentioned history. Here's some history. When questioned after WW2 the leader of the Imperial Japanese Military told the Emperor when asked why not invade the west coast of America. He stated because there will be a person with a gun behind every tree. That is a historical fact and another valid reason for an armed populace.

" He stated because there will be a person with a gun behind every tree."

Said by Admiral Isoruko Yamato, to be specific. The architect of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor and probably the most able military mind in Japan at the time. And he would have known. Yamamoto was a student at Harvard between wars and also served as Japan's military attache' in Washington for some time. He initially opposed the attack on pearl harbor and war with America, but his loyalty to his country dictated that he serve is emperor.

Another Yamamoto quote following the Pearl Harbor atteck:

"I fear that all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant, and fill him with a terrible resolve".

[Driller703]

Originally Posted by Reiver

The Militia Act of 1792 required every able bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45 to own the exact same gun as was used by the continental army.
Whatever they are using now, I want one.

I agree. The second amendment was and still is in place to protect the people from the government. Therefore, the people should have access to the same weapons that the government will be using against them.

[nancyre]

Originally Posted by Wyseguy

Can you define what you mean by semi-automatic?

Simply 1 tigger pull - 1 bullet
Semi-automatic mean there is some form of storage system that holds multiple bullets
vs.
Single shot / bolt action
1 tigger pull - 1 bullet expel bullet casing - load next bullet

vs. Military automatic - hold down tigger - rounds come out until you release the trigger (up to the number you have available / connected)

[Rainger99]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

" He stated because there will be a person with a gun behind every tree."

Said by Admiral Isoruko Yamato, to be specific. The architect of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor and probably the most able military mind in Japan at the time. And he would have known. Yamamoto was a student at Harvard between wars and also served as Japan's military attache' in Washington for some time. He initially opposed the attack on pearl harbor and war with America, but his loyalty to his country dictated that he serve is emperor.

Another Yamamoto quote following the Pearl Harbor atteck:

"I fear that all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant, and fill him with a terrible resolve".

A few years ago I tried to find where Yamamoto said that. I could not find it.

Misquoting Yamamoto - FactCheck.org

But it is a great quote!

And while researching the quote, I came across this depressing fact.

Japan logs record 150,000 new COVID-19 cases as Tokyo and Osaka both top 20,000.

[Wyseguy]

Originally Posted by nancyre

Simply 1 tigger pull - 1 bullet
Semi-automatic mean there is some form of storage system that holds multiple bullets
vs.
Single shot / bolt action
1 tigger pull - 1 bullet expel bullet casing - load next bullet

vs. Military automatic - hold down tigger - rounds come out until you release the trigger (up to the number you have available / connected)

Based on your definition, what handgun would be legal. If the idea is to outlaw semi auto weapons (as defined above), even revolvers would be outlawed. Six (or 5) bullets in a cylinder, one trigger pull one bullet.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

A few years ago I tried to find where Yamamoto said that. I could not find it.

Misquoting Yamamoto - FactCheck.org

But it is a great quote!

And while researching the quote, I came across this depressing fact.

Japan logs record 150,000 new COVID-19 cases as Tokyo and Osaka both top 20,000.

“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” (goodreads)

There is some controversy about whether or not Admiral Yamamoto actually said that, but it is eminently possible considering his experience in America. He knew the culture, which is why in my opinion he so strongly advocated not going to war with America in the first place.

[joelfmi]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Amazon.com

The weapons Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, and others considered as "arms" are far different from the arms of 2022.

Baked into the ethos of the United States is the belief that liberty and the rights of the people can only truly remain secure as long as the right to bear arms remains secure. There is a good reason for Americans to have this outlook. Which to me and many seniors believe in to keep our democracy in check.and not chipped away piece by piece..

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Byte1

Read the post again. I said to put "fear" into the Perp so they won't commit the crime to begin with. And that was referring to "putting the murderers down" when they commit murder. Saying "punishment" when I did not say that, is putting words not said into the equation.
When someone consistently compares our country with others, it makes me want to suggest they migrate to such a grand place. Our country is not like those other countries; it's unique. Folks want to come here. Very few of our U.S. citizens wish to reside elsewhere and do not leave permanently. Of course, some will argue and say "I know someone that moved." Some folks argue just to argue, instead of suggesting reasonable solutions. I made reasonable solutions to a persistent problem.
It's very simple:
1. Physical security for the children
2. Specialized training for law enforcement
3. Execute (kill) those that commit murder

Unreasonable ideas:
1. Ban semi-automatic weapons
2. Ban guns
3. Age limits
None of these "unreasonable" ideas will protect the children.

I apologize, I thought you were referring to incarceration. I agree with you. I don't recall which , but some state(s?) tried requiring death penalty for any felony where a gun was used. I don't think it helped, but honestly don't remember.

As for comparing to other countries. I see no problem with learning from others. Certainly we are different, but when every other country in the world does not have a serious problem we have, then I think it is worth trying to see why. Seeing what works someplace and figuring out how it might be applied here is just smart. It's, in my opinion, learning from others mistakes so I don't have to do it myself.

On your suggestions, we are not far apart. I absolutely want age limits. For the same reason we have age limits on drinking, driving, joining the military, etc etc etc. Children's brains have not fully developed.

And the thing I would add is universal background checks. If someone has a history of violent crimes, spousal abuse, mental illness, etc. I don't think they should have legal access to guns.

Which leads to my other suggestion, which I don't see any reason responsible gun owner should mind, and that is holding the seller of guns responsible to have performed the universal background test. If they failed to perform the test, or sold even though the buyer failed, they should share the blame for anything the illegal purchase results in.

So, I am okay with all of yours except age limits. (I think if a person can go to war at 18, then that should be old enough to own a gun) And I think we should add too more.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by joelfmi

Baked into the ethos of the United States is the belief that liberty and the rights of the people can only truly remain secure as long as the right to bear arms remains secure. There is a good reason for Americans to have this outlook. Which to me and many seniors believe in to keep our democracy in check.and not chipped away piece by piece..

I disagree with this basic premise. It is baked into some people, not everyone.

If it is should a good reason, why has it not been needed in 200 years except once - and that ended up changing nothing except killing 600,000 Americans, many of them brothers.

[Number 10 GI]

Only a completely naive fool trusts the government and only a totally brain dead fool believes politicians have their constituent's best interests at heart.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Driller703

I agree. The second amendment was and still is in place to protect the people from the government. Therefore, the people should have access to the same weapons that the government will be using against them.

And how many times have the people had to rise up and put the government in its place over the past 200 years?

And don't tell me it's working. There is no proof of causation. The closest we have come was 18 month ago, and we can't talk about that.