Path: csiph.com!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.tu-darmstadt.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Snit Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,sci.physics,alt.checkmate,talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: The Supreme Court got it wrong. Date: 5 Jun 2018 04:31:11 GMT Lines: 90 Message-ID: References: <3azQC.316732$1e7.309457@fx38.iad> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net 806etYFFYql4V1iHDcqQbQiflahUxiqqPDfLLEmkGQUmzo7i2z Cancel-Lock: sha1:W2tlb8I+no2x3JCBE97Ht1LOWYU= sha1:nWKBpkOkVjAPeaSYuRyIqjVEp2I= User-Agent: NewsTap/5.3.1 (iPhone/iPod Touch) Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.advocacy:453971 sci.physics:688821 alt.checkmate:171322 talk.politics.guns:1090835 max headroom wrote: > In news:fnkajiF667U2@mid.individual.net, > Snit typed: > >> On 6/3/18 11:24 PM, max headroom wrote: >>> In news:fnj8k6Fp1jcU1@mid.individual.net, >>> Snit typed: >>>> Just Wondering wrote: >>>>> On 6/2/2018 2:25 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>> On 6/2/2018 1:43 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/2/18 8:59 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/2/2018 9:51 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Militia. Bear arms. These words have meaning. > >>>>>>>>>> The SC has determined that the clauses in question are >>>>>>>>>> explanations, not limitations. This is a *RIGHT OF THE >>>>>>>>>> PEOPLE*. > >>>>>>>>> The Supreme Court got it wrong. > >>>>>>>>> Americans may keep and bear Arms For The State's Militia . > >>>>>>>>> Clearly, no "Militia" should include depressed gunmen >>>>>>>>> slaughtering concert goers like a meat packing service. > >>>>>>>> Right, Rolf. WAIT! I got it! Lets have Congress pass a law that >>>>>>>> makes murder a crime? No doubt the terrorists in the NRA will >>>>>>>> fight that idea! > >>>>>>>> I think you'll find, Rolf, that unless Congress passes "common >>>>>>>> sense" laws that disarm all citizens "we" will continue shooting >>>>>>>> school children and other innocents until the message is loud >>>>>>>> and clear! > >>>>>>> Why jump to the idea of disarming all citizens? What makes you >>>>>>> think that is common sense? > >>>>>> I was told by all those making the same arguments you are that it >>>>>> was common sense. Don't you agree? Pass laws that ban gun >>>>>> ownership for all potential shooters and you stop all the >>>>>> masscres at schools and concerts. Isn't that just common sense? > >>>>> Pass laws that ban alcohol and marijuana ownership >>>>> for all potential users and you stop all drunk >>>>> driving and pot-induced car accidents. Isn't that >>>>> just common sense? >>>>> Oh, wait, we've tried those things and they don't >>>>> work either. Never mind. > >>>> We have made policy that has greatly reduced vehicular death. The >>>> success there has been amazing even with more miles driven. > >>>> We should use the same model and have evidence based regulation, >>>> licensing, registration, limits, etc. > >>>> Evidence based requires research of course. Without it we cannot >>>> target the laws well. The NRA and most gun owners show no >>>> understanding of improvement to our targeting. > >>> Then let the Department of Justice do it. > >> Do they do research on other health and safety issues?... > > No, they do research on CRIMES, and that's the real issue here-- lives > lost to criminals who use > guns in their crimes. > > AFAIK, accidental deaths due to gunshots continue to creep downward. > Suicides are still a problem, > but can a society that legalizes doctor-assisted suicide and champions > "Death with Dignity" really > bitch about the ultimate DIY project? > >> ... If so then I am fine with them doing research here, too. Absolutely! > >> Heck, let the NRA also fund research (though given their built in bias >> of benefiting from gun sales and gun violence we should be wary of it). > > Given the CDC's history of advocating the elimination of privately-owned > handguns, we should be wary > of it, too. > > > You changed the topic from health impacts to crimes. Interesting.