Every day, 20 US Children Hospitalized w/Gun Injury (6% Die)

[MonDie]

It cannot be read as an argument. And that is your second or third failure at parallel construction of an argument - which should tell you something.

 

Once again, you have presented a condition justifying an imposed obligation as being somehow similar or parallel to a context informing an established right. Once again, as in post 866 above, we can try to rewrite your scene in actual parallel with the 2nd Amendment:

 

"Well regulated removal of garbage being necessary for the cleanliness of an occupied dwelling, the right of the occupants to keep and employ garbage cans shall not be infringed"

 

Do you see the difference? It is not small. The 2nd Amendment imposes no obligations, gives no orders, makes no arguments. It establishes a right.

Your rewording still involves a claim being made to justify an imperative.

I don't see the difference between oblgiation and right. Explain it. The government has an obligation not to "abridge (I)", "infringe (II)", or "violate (IV)" our rights. Rights are a kind of obligation.

 

The supreme court agrees that it's a because statement.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

 

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

 

[overtone]

Your rewording still involves a claim being made to justify an imperative.

Yes - and inform the imperative, prevent it from being misread as allowing the confiscation of arms suitable for a militia.

 

An imperative cannot be invalidated, or falsified. It is not a conclusion from reasoning.

 

 

 

I don't see the difference between oblgiation and right

Yeah. There's a lot of that going around.

 

 

The government has an obligation not to "abridge (I)", "infringe (II)", or "violate (IV)" our rights. Rights are a kind of obligation

Uh - - - regardless: we all at least agree that they are not an obligation upon the possessor of the right. Nobody has to join a militia, of any degree of "regulation", to carry a firearm in the US. Even women - who are largely omitted from the descriptions of "militia" - are included in "the people".

Edited October 29, 2015 by overtone

[waitforufo]

There is no significance in the Supreme Court never having ruled on the language of the 2nd Amendment until 2008 - it is simple, plain, and had never been challenged, is all.

 

To conclude from cases such as those cited that some implication hidden in their rulings overrides the language plainly visible and uncontradicted in the rulings themselves, is puzzling.

 

To conclude from a lack of relevant rulings that the interpretation before 2008 was other than appears obvious, and other than was stated in the 2008 case, and other than most Americans have always assumed, and other than - frankly - any reasonable "interpretation" allows, is bizarre.

 

And especially in a thread purporting to address gun violence in general, and child victimization in particular.

 

What is the motivation?

 

 

No, it doesn't.

 

In this case, there was no premise, no argument, and no conclusion, anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

It cannot be read as an argument. And that is your second or third failure at parallel construction of an argument - which should tell you something.

 

Once again, you have presented a condition justifying an imposed obligation as being somehow similar or parallel to a context informing an established right. Once again, as in post 866 above, we can try to rewrite your scene in actual parallel with the 2nd Amendment:

 

"Well regulated removal of garbage being necessary for the cleanliness of an occupied dwelling, the right of the occupants to keep and employ garbage cans shall not be infringed"

 

Do you see the difference? It is not small. The 2nd Amendment imposes no obligations, gives no orders, makes no arguments. It establishes a right.

 

And as long as the issue of gun control is in deadlock between

1) people who think the right of free speech means not only can one shout "fire" whenever, but set them at will; and

2) people who think the right of the people to keep and bear arms actually means the right of the State to arm a National Guard,

 

it will never be a likely or effective approach to dealing with anything , let alone gun injury to children.

 

 

Yes - and inform the imperative, prevent it from being misread as allowing the confiscation of arms suitable for a militia.

 

An imperative cannot be invalidated, or falsified. It is not a conclusion from reasoning.

 

 

 

Yeah. There's a lot of that going around.

 

 

Uh - - - regardless: we all at least agree that they are not an obligation upon the possessor of the right. Nobody has to join a militia, of any degree of "regulation", to carry a firearm in the US. Even women - who are largely omitted from the descriptions of "militia" - are included in "the people".

Overtone,

You and I differ greatly on the need for gun control in the United States. Your logic however is impeccable on the second amendment. Thankfully for my side of the gun control argument, our opponents are as hopelessly lost as those that challenge your logic. It makes the fight a lot easier for my side.

I loved your tar baby analogy, by the way. I often wonder if the arguments against your position are just NRA shills muddying the waters. Any judge accepting such nonsense arguments would be a laughing stock in the legal profession.

Edited October 29, 2015 by waitforufo

[iNow]

http://news.discovery.com/tech/biotechnology/biometric-gun-lock-has-fingerprint-scanner-140505.htm

http://www.wired.com/2014/05/sentinl-gun-lock/

 

<snip>

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmAv2Xm0VnA

The above was just one example.

 

60 Minutes did a piece on this last weekend that highlighted numerous other existing options available for smart guns. Of course the NRA opposes them, but the video segment is just over 10 minutes long if you want to watch for yourself:

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/smart-guns/

 

Smart Guns

NOVEMBER 1, 2015, 7:38 PM | Smart-gun technology is not new, yet these guns are not mass-produced or sold in the U.S., partly due to fears they are a backdoor to greater gun control. Lesley Stahl reports.

 

WATCH: http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/smart-guns/

[MigL]

If this technology is available, and relatively cheap, iNow, why aren't more police forces making use of it ?

It seems that every time you read of an dust-up between police and a drunk or stoned civilian, an attempt is always made on the gun.

Wouldn't smart weapons reduce the danger of this ?

 

Apologies for straying off-topic.

[iNow]

If this technology is available, and relatively cheap, iNow, why aren't more police forces making use of it ?

It seems that every time you read of an dust-up between police and a drunk or stoned civilian, an attempt is always made on the gun.

As noted in the story, pressure from special interests seems to be the most likely culprit.

 

Said another way, misplaced priorities and asymmetric influences.

[Ten oz]

"SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — An 18-year-old California university freshman went on an elaborately planned rampage with a hunting knife because he was barred from a study group, authorities said

Merced County Sheriff Vern Warnke said a two-page "manifesto" detailing Faisal Mohammad's motive and plans to terrorize and kill several classmates at the University of California, Merced was found on his body Thursday during his autopsy.

One student remained hospitalized Thursday, and a staff member who suffered a collapsed lung was recovering after surgery, the school said. Price and a second student were treated and released."

http://news.yahoo.com/worker-hero-facing-attacker-california-university-093308093.html#

 

 

A college student writes manifesto and goes on a rampage with intentions to kill. A sadly familiar story. Only this time the assailant fails to kill anyone. All the victims live. What was the difference?

[dimreepr]

"SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — An 18-year-old California university freshman went on an elaborately planned rampage with a hunting knife because he was barred from a study group, authorities said

Merced County Sheriff Vern Warnke said a two-page "manifesto" detailing Faisal Mohammad's motive and plans to terrorize and kill several classmates at the University of California, Merced was found on his body Thursday during his autopsy.

One student remained hospitalized Thursday, and a staff member who suffered a collapsed lung was recovering after surgery, the school said. Price and a second student were treated and released."

http://news.yahoo.com/worker-hero-facing-attacker-california-university-093308093.html#

 

 

A college student writes manifesto and goes on a rampage with intentions to kill. A sadly familiar story. Only this time the assailant fails to kill anyone. All the victims live. What was the difference?

 

 

Don’t be surprised if someone answers, nobody would have been injured if the staff members had guns.

[Arete]

the University of California, Merced

 

As some here may know I recently started as a faculty member at UC Merced.

 

The tragedy has hit hard, as we are a small, closely connected campus. Most of our community knows someone directly affected by the incident. Today is our first day back on campus, so it's all still very raw and surreal. However, a few points:

 

1) I have nothing but praise for the way that the University has handled the situation. UCM police were on the scene 2 minutes after the incident started - and really acted above and beyond the call of duty. I am very sad that one of the officers was put in the position of having to take a young man's life. The entire community had an alert about the situation well within ten minutes of the start of the incident. We had continuous updates throughout the day to let us know promptly how the situation unfolded. I felt informed and secure as events unfolded, and the UCM community has really rallied together to support each other in the wake of this event.

 

2) This really is a tragedy for everyone. Faisal Mohammad had only just turned 18 and was a high achieving student. The area where the incident occurred is in the center of campus and the bridge where he was shot by police I cross every day. There is concern about how this will affect the education and college experience of current students, as well as the reputation of the school and the potential impact of future enrollments. There is a strong desire to not let this event define the community or the university, and to move forward in a positive light.

 

3) I think both locally and nationally there needs to be conversation about why this is happening and how we can prevent it. Why did Faisal Mohammad fail to connect with his peers? Why did he feel the desire to kill his classmates? What do we need to do to recognize the warning signs that someone like this needs help? More broadly, why does this keep happening across the country, what are the factors that lead to these events and how do we prevent them from affecting our young, promising citizens in the future? These are not easy questions to answer and go much deeper than the gun debate. I hope the national dialogue about college/school attacks can rise above that particular facet of the debate to address the systemic problem in a meaningful way.

 

4) I feel very deep anger towards the element of society that has taken it upon itself to use our tragedy to dishonestly push its xenophobic anti Islamic agenda. We have a troubled young man from Santa Clara, who, feeling socially outcast by his peers expressed his anger and frustration violently and tragically. This was not terrorism, this was not committed in the name of any religion and to suggest so is dishonest. We have a strong Islamic student community on campus who have been hit doubly hard by both the tragedy in our midst and the appalling use of their own tragedy to demonize them.

 

A couple of good articles have emerged following the incident which I think are worth the time to read:

 

https://ryanmfranco.wordpress.com/2015/11/04/uc-merced-what-you-wont-hear-in-the-news/

 

http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/editorials/article43332432.html

[CharonY]

I think especially 3 and 4 require much more discussion and research than is currently available or done. I am not sure whether we can get the answers we would like to have, but if we only discuss the tangents we certainly won't.

 

On a different note, glad you are safe.

[Ten oz]

 

3) I think both locally and nationally there needs to be conversation about why this is happening and how we can prevent it. Why did Faisal Mohammad fail to connect with his peers? Why did he feel the desire to kill his classmates? What do we need to do to recognize the warning signs that someone like this needs help? More broadly, why does this keep happening across the country, what are the factors that lead to these events and how do we prevent them from affecting our young, promising citizens in the future? These are not easy questions to answer and go much deeper than the gun debate. I hope the national dialogue about college/school attacks can rise above that particular facet of the debate to address the systemic problem in a meaningful way.

I lived in the Bay Area when the building of UC Merced first began. Like so many I was interested in the real estate boom a UC would bring to the area. Between 03' - 04' I toured nurmerous homes and new housing developments in Merced but ultimately ended up leave the state and never purchased anything. I recall it being a very nice place.

 

There absolutely needs to be a national discussion about this. Prescription drugs and video games come up a lot as do many other factors for why we are expiriencing a rise in such acts, particularly at schools. Unfortunately, from what I see, we only make half hearted attempts at meanigful national dialogue. Guns may not be the cause but they are more times than not the weapon of choice and the cause for the greatest numbers of fatalities. They belong in the discussion. Instead many insist guns come off the table as a prerequisite to participation in any discussion about the issue. Its a "look at every thing else first" mentality that does not lend itself well to problem solving. Perhaps guns are just a symptom and not the disease. Until the disease is identified and cured we still need to manage the symptoms.

[MonDie]

3) I think both locally and nationally there needs to be conversation about why this is happening and how we can prevent it. Why did Faisal Mohammad fail to connect with his peers? Why did he feel the desire to kill his classmates? What do we need to do to recognize the warning signs that someone like this needs help? More broadly, why does this keep happening across the country, what are the factors that lead to these events and how do we prevent them from affecting our young, promising citizens in the future? These are not easy questions to answer and go much deeper than the gun debate. I hope the national dialogue about college/school attacks can rise above that particular facet of the debate to address the systemic problem in a meaningful way.

 

Deterrence is a matter of available options or means. How many options does the potential criminal have for achieving their end, and how can we reduce their options to discourage that action. One approach is restricting acces to guns, but this is yet another example of how this will not always deter. I think anything more elaborate will require us to understand their motives.

Perhaps we could also consider positive options that aren't available.

[overtone]

Instead many insist guns come off the table as a prerequisite to participation in any discussion about the issue

1) That's not happening 2) So what if it were? Carry on without the lunatic fringe.

 

Unless your actual agenda were to focus on the guns, of course, before and in fact instead of turning to anything else, in a discussion about a stabbing of adults which has been posted in a thread about gun injuries to children. But of course we assume otherwise, you being a reasonable person and not part of any obsessed fringe yourself.

 

Prescription drugs and video games come up a lot as do many other factors for why we are expiriencing a rise in such acts, particularly at schools.

Bill Maher has raised the topic of sexual frustration in young men, which seems like something that hasn't been as well acknowledged a factor as it deserves to be.

 

There is also suggestion to consider - as with other forms of suicide and capitulation, running amok seems to be contagious.

Edited November 6, 2015 by overtone

[Endy0816]

Meh, because you know if he had a firearm he could have done far more damage.

 

Thank FSM, insanity begets stupidity. He could have just bought one but instead attacked officers for theirs.

[MonDie]

Bill Maher has raised the topic of sexual frustration in young men, which seems like something that hasn't been as well acknowledged a factor as it deserves to be.

A sort of nostalgia for the 60's. Sex is certainly uplifting. Maybe abstinence is overrated.

Anthropologists love the bonobos.

[Ten oz]

1) That's not happening 2) So what if it were? Carry on without the lunatic fringe.

 

Unless your actual agenda were to focus on the guns, of course, before and in fact instead of turning to anything else, in a discussion about a stabbing of adults which has been posted in a thread about gun injuries to children. But of course we assume otherwise, you being a reasonable person and not part of any obsessed fringe yourself.

 

Bill Maher has raised the topic of sexual frustration in young men, which seems like something that hasn't been as well acknowledged a factor as it deserves to be.

 

There is also suggestion to consider - as with other forms of suicide and capitulation, running amok seems to be contagious.

I didn't not dismiss there being many factors. I only said guns need to be part of the conversation and that many tried to prevent it from being. To that point you denied "that's not happening", challanged "so what if it were", and then provide alternitives point of discussion that are not guns "sexual frustration". This sort of response proves my point. Your post serves as a deflection that makes having a meaningful discussion more difficult.

[overtone]

I didn't not dismiss there being many factors. I only said guns need to be part of the conversation and that many tried to prevent it from being.

And I did not dismiss guns as a factor, or deny that some people attempt to dismiss them a priori. But these people are at the table - obnoxiously and far too influentially at the table. You claimed that there existed a body of people who were refusing to come to the table at all if guns were at all included in the discussion by others. I pointed out that such a faction, it it exists, can and should be simply ignored.

 

Your post serves as a deflection that makes having a meaningful discussion more difficult.

So yet another of my contributions of factors besides guns that should be part of this discussion is a deflection? From what?

 

Look, if all you want to talk about is gun control, then quit claiming that you are only saying that "guns need to be a part of the conversation". Gun control is the whole of your conversation here. If you read back in this thread, you will find several attempts by posters to introduce some of these other parts of the conversation. They are not "deflections" from a conversation in which "guns" are only a part. You will also find my repeated recommendation that since the issue of gun control - not "guns", but gun control by the government - has deadlocked in extremist irrationality from both sides, and has little promise for the issue of the OP anyway, it should be abandoned in this thread and similar discussions. Other approaches ( including some involving guns, btw ) are both more available and intrinsically - from the beginning, all else equal - more promising in their possible benefits. They should have been front and center from the get go, in my opinion. Instead, they are not even part of the conversation - even mentioning yet another one is a "deflection".

Edited November 7, 2015 by overtone

[imatfaal]

21 December

• Xzavier Zane Robinson
• Age: 3

14 December

• Two un-named siblings in Kayenta, Arizona
• Age: both below 10

11 December

• Sienna Dusk Owens
• Age: 11

11 December

• Kaden Nagel
• Age: 3

09 December

• Unnamed Child in South Buckner Boulevard, Dallas, Texas
• Age: Below 11

07 December

• Name: Colton Johnson
• Age: 5

06 December

• Kenacia Amerson-Straughn
• Age: 2

03 December

• Connor Evan Gappmayer
• Age: 10

03 December

• Emma Watson Nowling
• Age: 7

So that we do not lose sight of what this thread is about - here are the latest CHILD mortalities. Unfortunately this will be an under-reporting - other children WILL have been killed and the news of their deaths will not have reached the archivists yet. There are many more serious life-changing injuries and I haven't included the deaths of those I would still consider children who are over the age of 11.

 

Happy holidays everyone in this season of goodwill to all!

[iNow]

[overtone]

 

 

So that we do not lose sight of what this thread is about - here are the latest CHILD mortalities.

"Smart guns" make sense here. Even an aftermarket "smart trigger lock" would prevent some of these, at small cost.

[StringJunky]

Couldn't guns have a statutorily-enforced minimum amount of trigger-pull such that it would be much more difficult for a child to fire

 

I also read about a woman recently adjusting her gun that was in her bra and mortally shot herself... the trigger was too soft, possibly?

Edited January 8, 2016 by StringJunky

[zapatos]

Couldn't guns have a statutorily-enforced minimum amount of trigger-pull such that it would be much more difficult for a child to fire

 

I also read about a woman recently adjusting her gun that was in her bra and mortally shot herself... the trigger was too soft, possibly?

I'm afraid that might result in more dangerous guns as they would be inherently more difficult to shoot accurately. I'd rather stick with something like trigger locks.

 

As far as that woman is concerned, if people don't follow basic safety standards then most everything in their lives will be dangerous.

[Ten oz]

Could some sort of microscopic carbon tag with a serial number be molded into every bullet? To buy a box of bullets you show an ID and that boxes serial number gets registered to you. Then when a child is shot to death in a drive by shooting police at least have at least one clue for where to start investigating.

 

I am aware that ammunition can be made at home. So can vodka but overwhelming people buy it from the store. Just make selling unregistered bullets a serious felony and that would allow law enforcement officials to crack down on the practice over time. I am also aware that some people already have enormous stockpiles of ammunition. That is fine. Over time it will be used or eventually go bad.

 

The law would not make having unregistered bullets illegal. Just selling them illegal. The idea has zero impact on firearms and thus isn't a 2nd admendment issue.

[Carrock]

I'm afraid that might result in more dangerous guns as they would be inherently more difficult to shoot accurately.

More dangerous for the user certainly.

 

Even the most law abiding citizen is potentially dangerous and may get you in legal trouble after you fail to kill him/her with an inadequately lethal gun, even if you honestly believed (s)he was intending to attempt to kill you.

Edited January 8, 2016 by Carrock

[zapatos]

More dangerous for the user certainly.

 

Even the most law abiding citizen is potentially dangerous and may get you in legal trouble after you fail to kill him/her with an inadequately lethal gun, even if you honestly believed (s)he was intending to attempt to kill you.

I'm sorry but I don't understand. Can you please restate this?