Another shooting, close to

[IceToEskimos]

Why won't you answer my question? Is occupational licensure justifiable or not?

I'm not going to answer that question, because we aren't talking about occupational licensure.

We are talking about the rights of men to purchase and maintain property (guns!) without interference or condition.

I'll make you a deal though.


If you admit that you think government has the right to prevent it's citizens from acquiring private property, as well as the right to confiscate any property maintained by those citizens in the name of "public safety", "the common good", "common sense" or for any other reason, I'll tell you how I feel about the CT Department of Public Health, and their licensing program.

 

[dchuk]

It's nothing more than conjecture. What difference will it make?

No, it's not. Occupational licensure exists in order to protect society as it regulates who is allowed and not allowed to do specific lines of work. An unlicensed surgeon is a potential manslaughterer, an unlicensed pilot is a potential mass murderer.

What we've established so far is that licenses are good for occupations, but not good for guns. Licenses aren't good for guns because they are at risk of arbitrary revocation by our government. Are occupational licenses not also subject to this risk? And if they are, should we move to eliminate occupational licensure as well?

If that were the case, how is the safety net from occupational licensure going to be replaced? Or maybe we don't need licensed surgeons, lawyers, pilots, drivers...

 

[CharliBaltimore]

IMO.... If the teachers were trained, armed, and everyone was allowed to freely carry, these idiots would thing twice before doing such horrific things on unarmed innocent people.

Forgive spelled, on iPad

Wrong, the people who go and shoot up malls, schools and other public places already have a death wish. You can't put the threat of them being shot (death) over them when they plan on committing suicide or going out by suicide by cop anyway. But you can make a good case for burglars robbing homes because robbers tend to want to live after burgling a home.

 

[dchuk]

I'm not going to answer that question, because we aren't talking about occupational licensure.

We are talking about the rights of men to purchase and maintain property (guns!) without interference or condition.

I'll make you a deal though.


If you admit that you think government has the right to prevent it's citizens from acquiring private property, as well as the right to confiscate any property maintained by those citizens in the name of "public safety", "the common good", "common sense" or for any other reason, I'll tell you how I feel about the CT Department of Public Health, and their licensing program.

Per what I wrote a post above this, I'm arguing that strict licensing systems for guns will ensure a core level of education and competency for owning weapons that should help ensure a certain level of safety amongst gun owners.

This is comparable at least systematically to what we currently use to ensure that doctors, pilots, etc have a core level of education and competency to do their jobs.

I think that guns are a special case of private property as their core function is to harm and because of that they are a higher risk piece of property than say, a cake (troll-face.jpg). Because of that, I think a system of licensure can help improve the safety of the population at large in a similar way to making sure our drivers, pilots, doctors, surgeons, etc are licensed.

 

[IceToEskimos]

Per what I wrote a post above this, I'm arguing that strict licensing systems for guns will ensure a core level of education and competency for owning weapons that should help ensure a certain level of safety amongst gun owners.

This is comparable at least systematically to what we currently use to ensure that doctors, pilots, etc have a core level of education and competency to do their jobs.

I think that guns are a special case of private property as their core function is to harm and because of that they are a higher risk piece of property than say, a cake (troll-face.jpg). Because of that, I think a system of licensure can help improve the safety of the population at large in a similar way to making sure our drivers, pilots, doctors, surgeons, etc are licensed.

So, to tl;dr it down, you do believe that the acquisition and maintenance of private property by an individual should be dependent on the approval of the government in some cases?

 

[dchuk]

So, to tl;dr it down, you do believe that the acquisition and maintenance of private property by an individual should be dependent on the approval of the government in some cases?

Yep, in the case of weaponry, I think ownership should be more heavily regulated. I think it's also important to point out that gun ownership is already regulated so I'm not even asking for that drastic of a change, just for more strict pre-purchase regulation and licensure.

I think gun regulations should be evolved to encourage education and safety. The systems currently in place aren't doing a good enough job of that in my opinion.

 

[Moxie]

Mass Shootings Not On The Rise

I made the mistake of glancing at the comments...


"if this criminologist truly believes there is not an epidemic growing, than he is not as brilliant as he may think he is and is desensitized. i am not interested in the historical facts he bases his opinion on"

"This is not telling the truth. It is twisting what I read and see every day in the paper."


This is the type of thing that makes criminology professors (who tend to be more "liberal") want to bang their head against the wall.

 

[dchuk]

Mass Shootings Not On The Rise

I made the mistake of glancing at the comments...


"if this criminologist truly believes there is not an epidemic growing, than he is not as brilliant as he may think he is and is desensitized. i am not interested in the historical facts he bases his opinion on"

"This is not telling the truth. It is twisting what I read and see every day in the paper."


This is the type of thing that makes criminology professors (who tend to be more "liberal") want to bang their head against the wall.

Mass shootings are just more sensational and draw a lot attention, the core problem is gun violence in general.

 

[Midas Touch]

Mass shootings are just more sensational and draw a lot attention, the core problem is ALL violence in general.

There fixed that for ya.

 

[IceToEskimos]

Yep, in the case of weaponry, I think ownership should be more heavily regulated. I think it's also important to point out that gun ownership is already regulated so I'm not even asking for that drastic of a change, just for more strict pre-purchase regulation and licensure.

I think gun regulations should be evolved to encourage education and safety. The systems currently in place aren't doing a good enough job of that in my opinion.

Ok, so we need more restrictions on the right of individuals to own private property.


As for occupational licensing?

I don't think it prevents anyone from being killed or maimed, because licensed pilots and surgeons kill people all the time.

I do think it keeps competition down in the market, and it's a nice way to generate some additional revenue for the state.

As far as the public is concerned, while you can say that going to see a licensed physician is probably better than going to see an unlicensed physician, I can think of plenty of examples (80 year old family doctor who does not read current medical journals vs. 4th year med student well aware of cutting edge treatment options) where that might not be the case at all.

People will support the idea of occupational licenses because they don't have the time or energy to look into the credentials of every professional they employ, so a state licence functions as something of a time-saver for most people, because they can ask to see it, and then feel like their interests are being protected by the state's licensing requirements, so they don't have to worry about it.




Do you know what you call a doctor who got straight C's in medical school?






















You call him "Doctor"

 

[Midas Touch]

This will be my .02 worth on this matter.



Without guns it's stabbings.

Without Knives it's Clubbings.

Without Clubs it's Bashings with large heavy blunt objects.

Then it's poisonings.

Then it's CHOKING with bare hands.

Then it's Hanging with Vines or Ropes or cords.

etc...etc...etc...



Whenever someone WANTS TO DO VIOLENCE they WILL find a way no matter what types of regulations/restrictions are in effect.


Our Forefathers gave us the right to bare ARMS to DEFEND ourselves from Tyrannical Government that may in the future try to harm us in ANY WAY.



We have LONG forgotten that "our" Government was BUILT to be a body OF THE PEOPLE that is to be FOR THE PEOPLE. As in PROTECTING OUR RIGHTS & LIBERTY'S not as in taking EVERYTHING AWAY FROM US.


And it was to represent THE PEOPLE to other COUNTRIES & CULTURES. Not to OPPRESS, KILL, and PILLAGE the other Countries & Cultures around us.


The Federal Government was NEVER meant to be a DAMN FOR PROFIT BUSINESS that would let itself be HIRED out by Independent Private Business or Regime's of other Countries to be an International Hit Country to the highest bidder.


Thomas Jefferson was MORE RIGHT than even he may have known or imagined back when he wrote this:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."


It's shameful how we have just sat back & let the TYRANTS run a muck here because THE PEOPLE are now SCARED TO DEATH of their OWN GOVERNMENT in the Land of The Free.

I'll repeat it one last time, "Our Forefathers set up OUR Government to be run BY THE PEOPLE and FOR THE PEOPLE."

It has now been PERVERTED into A GOVERNMENT run OUTSIDE it's people and AGAINST THE PEOPLE!!!


We're already about 100 years late in REFRESHING that PRECIOUS LIBERTY TREE here in The United States of America!!!

 

[tomaszjot]

Ok, so we need more restrictions on the right of individuals to own private property.


As for occupational licensing?

I don't think it prevents anyone from being killed or maimed, because licensed pilots and surgeons kill people all the time.

I do think it keeps competition down in the market, and it's a nice way to generate some additional revenue for the state.

As far as the public is concerned, while you can say that going to see a licensed physician is probably better than going to see an unlicensed physician, I can think of plenty of examples (80 year old family doctor who does not read current medical journals vs. 4th year med student well aware of cutting edge treatment options) where that might not be the case at all.

People will support the idea of occupational licenses because they don't have the time or energy to look into the credentials of every professional they employ, so a state licence functions as something of a time-saver for most people, because they can ask to see it, and then feel like their interests are being protected by the state's licensing requirements, so they don't have to worry about it.


Do you know what you call a doctor who got straight C's in medical school?


You call him "Doctor"

^^ this.

I remember back in my communist native country occupations such as lawyer were heavily regulated and licensed. Result was a hermetic group of lawyers and regulators controlling who and when will get the license. Plenty of young well educated talented people couldn't practice the law because licenses were granted to family members and friends among the group. Connections were (and are) everything. In result the lawyer who barely finish his uni (mostly thanks to connection anyway) was practicing the law while talented people had to look for positions outside law system.

I remember that at the time no one without connections or lawyers inside family had even consider career in this profession. Same thing applies to doctors and many many more. In result of license you get a service from second-hand specialists for the higher price.

 

[dchuk]

Ok, so we need more restrictions on the right of individuals to own private property.

Ok, so we need more restrictions on the right of individuals to own firearms.

As for occupational licensing?

I don't think it prevents anyone from being killed or maimed, because licensed pilots and surgeons kill people all the time.

I do think it keeps competition down in the market, and it's a nice way to generate some additional revenue for the state.

As far as the public is concerned, while you can say that going to see a licensed physician is probably better than going to see an unlicensed physician, I can think of plenty of examples (80 year old family doctor who does not read current medical journals vs. 4th year med student well aware of cutting edge treatment options) where that might not be the case at all.

People will support the idea of occupational licenses because they don't have the time or energy to look into the credentials of every professional they employ, so a state licence functions as something of a time-saver for most people, because they can ask to see it, and then feel like their interests are being protected by the state's licensing requirements, so they don't have to worry about it.

Do you know what you call a doctor who got straight C's in medical school?

You call him "Doctor"

It appears I fundamentally disagree with you on another contentious topic so it's not worth even going down that path in my opinion.

I tip my hat to you sir, this was enjoyable.

 

[IceToEskimos]

I tip my hat to you sir, this was enjoyable.

Likewise!

 

[dchuk]

^^ this.

I remember back in my communist native country occupations such as lawyer were heavily regulated and licensed. Result was a hermetic group of lawyers and regulators controlling who and when will get the license. Plenty of young well educated talented people couldn't practice the law because licenses were granted to family members and friends among the group. Connections were (and are) everything. In result the lawyer who barely finish his uni (mostly thanks to connection anyway) was practicing the law while talented people had to look for positions outside law system.

I remember that at the time no one without connections or lawyers inside family had even consider career in this profession. Same thing applies to doctors and many many more. In result of license you get a service from second-hand specialists for the higher price.

While I appreciate what you're saying, I don't think this applies in America nor does it pose anywhere near the same problems here. Again, the checks and balances for licensing systems seems to be keeping things fair for the most part here, I don't hear many complaining about the American licensure process for doctors very often.

 

[Yuma504]

Why was the Second Amendment written, and why is it still important today?

Amendment II (1791)
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

• Our founding fathers migrated to the United States to escape oppressive totalitarian government.

• The concept behind the United States is that the centralized federal government has limited power over the people (as opposed to the dictatorships from which our founding fathers came)

• The Second Amendment states that in order to maintain a free state, the people must retain the right to keep and bear arms. The presence of armed citizens is what keeps the government "honest". No government would be foolish enough to impose a dictatorship on people who have the ability to resist.

• The Second Amendment does not grant us this right. This right already existed. The Second Amendment merely prevents the government from infringing on it.

Each and every amendment in the Bill of Rights is important, but the the Second Amendment is the most important because it guarantees that the others will not be taken away.​

If you gun control advocates still dream of a day when the private ownership of guns is banned and the police are the only ones who are armed, feel free to relocate to the People's Republic of China, where your dream is a reality.

10 USC Sec. 311 (That's Title 10 of the U.S. Code, Section 311, subtitle A part chapter 13) you'll find this:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

In other words, if you have a penis, you ARE the militia!

the above was excerpted from here: http://members.tripod.com/~waycool_dude/secondamendment.htm

Just a word on the recent events:

There are for many "parallels" between the recent mass shootings/ers. Chiefly among them: they were all currently on PSYCHOTROPIC DRUGS... with heinous side effects. WHY ISN'T THIS BEING DISCUSSED?

Why isn't the idea of banning dangerous and ineffective prescription drugs on the table for debate?

Why isn't our culture of insulation, isolation and disconnectedness being more closely looked at? NYC can do a fuck ton of study on large sugary drinks and come to a ban order (due to health concerns), but heavy medications, absentee parent-ism and the influence of 6 plus hours of day of violent video games is negated and minimized.

Seems as if all three aforementioned issues had a huge affect on Adam Lanza and his killing spree.

 

[swiftmoney]

 

[Moxie]

There are for many "parallels" between the recent mass shootings/ers. Chiefly among them: they were all currently on PSYCHOTROPIC DRUGS... with heinous side effects. WHY ISN'T THIS BEING DISCUSSED?

It was discussed some in the other thread. Sugar, caffeine, and alcohol all have aggression side effects and "parallels" with violence.

Why isn't the idea of banning dangerous and ineffective prescription drugs on the table for debate?

There's evidence suggesting that overall they make society less dangerous. Studies show that many angry schizophrenics feel calmer after getting on medication, etc.

There's plenty of incidents where people go off their meds and then commit violent acts, such as with the Northern Illinois University shooter and with the vampire killer of Sacramento.

Personally I think they are overprescribed, but at the same time I wouldn't want to have to work in certain mental institutions if they were banned.

 

[lukep]

Dear Dchuk,

Those of us (4 of us now) who care about gun ownership mainly to preserve our freedom from tyranny, would like you to stop avoiding the big issue here and give us a long-overdue answer.

It seems extremely obvious to me that gun ownership for self-protection from criminals was never in the mind of our forefathers. They just got finished overthrowing a tyrannical foreign king and to them at the time they wrote the bill of rights, gun ownership was obviously & mainly to prevent the next tyrannical regime. It would be obtuse of you to think otherwise, or that they felt they'd truly created a utopia so no future tyrants would appear.

So I don't even bother arguing about gun ownership for self-protection. On that subject all I can say is that the genie is out of the bottle in the US and I own a shotgun (back in kansas) in case one of those 300 million guns finds its' way to my apartment there. I know how to use it too, which i hope gives me an edge over the stupid criminal breaking in.

But for the love of all things righteous, please address the real issue here; if you make it harder for citizens to own firearms, and therefore fewer citizens owned one, how could we overthrow the next tyrant to come along?

Hopefully you're not thinking that your ideal level of regulation would only remove 10% of the guns from citizens... Because we all know it wouldn't stop there... If Obomba successfully uses these mass shootings as a tool to get more americans happy to regulate guns, then the pool of ppl against guns has gotten bigger... And while a 10% reduction in legal guns this time might be easy to achieve, next time it will be a no-brainer because there will be a larger percentage of the nation already on the anti-gun bandwagon.

...It'll only be a matter of a few short years before they try to take the last of our guns away.

I say try, because I don't think they'd be successful. Too many rednecks with uzis today that will go down with guns blazing. Thank goodness.

 

[DewChugr]