SF declares NRA a terrorist organization

[Telconi]

Not adequate liberty.

Most countries with stricter firearms laws actually rank in the top 10 for most free and least oppressed by freedom house ratings.

So?

[Proctopeo]

A firearm is a tool, like a car.
What you have mentioned are not tools.

A printing press is also a tool. Language is a tool.

Also, whether it's a tool or not is irrelevant. Our right to keep and bear that tool is not to be restricted by the government. Full stop. At all. Ever. For any reason.

Also, those rankings are made by Europhiles who actively disdain the second amendment.

And don't forget much of the first.

[Celritannia]

I have looked at the federalist papers, I didn't see anything there.

Seriously?
Federalist-46

This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

So at the time, the militia would have been half a million strong, with a total population in 1776 being 2.5 million. that's 20% of the population in the militia.

US population today is 327.2 million, and 20% of that is 65.44 million people being apart of a militia today.

[Gun Manufacturers]

The only free range in MY state is only open on the weekends with 3, 90 minute time slots for each of the 10 covered shooting positions on each of those days. It's already almost impossible to get a slot at that range, imagine trying to process all the firearms owners in the state in a timely manner as well.

In my state, sheriffs and police tend to have an arrangement to use private ranges.

Your suggestion sounds like an infringement.

Gods, that sucks.
a couple of ranges near me, charge $6-10$ a lane, 2 people max per lane, for as long as you want to shoot. Targets are additional or you can bring your own.
One range has 25 lanes for long firearms, and 15 lanes for handgun.
The other range has 15 lanes.

The closest public range from me (over an hour away) charges $34/person all day for pistol/rifle, $28/person all day for shotgun, or $50/person all day for both.

[Kernen]

Seriously?
Federalist-46

This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

So at the time, the militia would have been half a million strong, with a total population in 1776 being 2.5 million. that's 20% of the population in the militia.

US population today is 327.2 million, and 20% of that is 6.11 million people being apart of a militia today, which is almost 3 time more than the actual US Armed Forces.

I dunno, I'd rather the people have the monopoly on force than the government when push comes to shove.

Not that you could get any kind of cooperation between those 6 million, even if they all answered the call.

[Celritannia]

A firearm is a tool, like a car.
What you have mentioned are not tools.

A printing press is also a tool. Language is a tool.

Also, whether it's a tool or not is irrelevant. Our right to keep and bear that tool is not to be restricted by the government. Full stop. At all. Ever. For any reason.

Also, those rankings are made by Europhiles who actively disdain the second amendment.

Language isn't a tool, not a physical tool, like a car or a gun.
Ideas create language.

Regulated Militia.
(Although after reading that federalist paper section over, it would be the state legislatures that would regulate their state militias rather than Congress).
Also incorrect. Those tables are independent of any nation.

[Kernen]

A printing press is also a tool. Language is a tool.

Also, whether it's a tool or not is irrelevant. Our right to keep and bear that tool is not to be restricted by the government. Full stop. At all. Ever. For any reason.

Also, those rankings are made by Europhiles who actively disdain the second amendment.

Language isn't a tool, not a physical tool, like a car or a gun.
Ideas create language.

Regulated Militia.
(Although after reading that federalist paper section over, it would be the state legislatures that would regulate their state militias rather than Congress).
Also incorrect. Those tables are independent of any nation.

Look to the tools that enable those rights. Computers, printing presses, phones, etc.

[Celritannia]

So at the time, the militia would have been half a million strong, with a total population in 1776 being 2.5 million. that's 20% of the population in the militia.

US population today is 327.2 million, and 20% of that is 6.11 million people being apart of a militia today, which is almost 3 time more than the actual US Armed Forces.

I dunno, I'd rather the people have the monopoly on force than the government when push comes to shove.

Not that you could get any kind of cooperation between those 6 million, even if they all answered the call.

I highly doubt the US Military would attack their own people though.
Certain Police officer yes, but not the military.

That is true.

[Kernen]

I dunno, I'd rather the people have the monopoly on force than the government when push comes to shove.

Not that you could get any kind of cooperation between those 6 million, even if they all answered the call.

I highly doubt the US Military would attack their own people though.
Certain Police officer yes, but not the military.

That is true.

Its always nice to have a high opinion of the people following orders and their ability to ignore orders for the greater good, but history is replete with examples of the exact opposite happening.

[Telconi]

Seriously?
Federalist-46

This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

So at the time, the militia would have been half a million strong, with a total population in 1776 being 2.5 million. that's 20% of the population in the militia.

US population today is 327.2 million, and 20% of that is 6.11 million people being apart of a militia today, which is almost 3 time more than the actual US Armed Forces.

20% of 327.2 is not 6.11

[Celritannia]

Language isn't a tool, not a physical tool, like a car or a gun.
Ideas create language.

Regulated Militia.
(Although after reading that federalist paper section over, it would be the state legislatures that would regulate their state militias rather than Congress).
Also incorrect. Those tables are independent of any nation.

Look to the tools that enable those rights. Computers, printing presses, phones, etc.

None of which cause harm, do they?

A firearm is a tool designed to injure or harm.
A car is a tool to go to places, yet humans being imperfect, there is insurance and taxes on them, and anyone who drives needs a licence.

[Celritannia]

So at the time, the militia would have been half a million strong, with a total population in 1776 being 2.5 million. that's 20% of the population in the militia.

US population today is 327.2 million, and 20% of that is 6.11 million people being apart of a militia today, which is almost 3 time more than the actual US Armed Forces.

20% of 327.2 is not 6.11

Apologies, 65.44 Million. Even larger than the US military.

[Kernen]

There are millions of gun owners who never hurt anybody. These measures you'd suggested would only actually limit an extremely minor segment of them at the cost of a great deal of substantive and procedural due process. The law and statistics suggest otherwise.

So what is the best course of action to stop these mass shootings then?

It only took one school shooting in the UK to bring in stricter firearm legislation.

I honestly don't think that one needs to take preventative measures to stop mass shootings beyond the security measures already used. Mass shootings are, almost to a man, angry young white conservative men who feel so entitled to their validation or revenge that they don't have a problem with killing innocents. Its far more of a cultural problem than a question of the tools. I strongly suspect that as the current batch of entitled kids age out, this will get better. Elementary schools are pretty good at inclusion these days.

[Kernen]

Look to the tools that enable those rights. Computers, printing presses, phones, etc.

None of which cause harm, do they?

A firearm is a tool designed to injure or harm.
A car is a tool to go to places, yet humans being imperfect, there is insurance and taxes on them, and anyone who drives needs a licence.

Cars hurt more people by far than guns. And you do not need a driver's license or insurance to acquire a car, just to operate it on public roads. Not even on private roads.

History shows that a free press is far more destabilizing than firearms to a society.

[Celritannia]

So what is the best course of action to stop these mass shootings then?

It only took one school shooting in the UK to bring in stricter firearm legislation.

I honestly don't think that one needs to take preventative measures to stop mass shootings beyond the security measures already used. Mass shootings are, almost to a man, angry young white conservative men who feel so entitled to their validation or revenge that they don't have a problem with killing innocents. Its far more of a cultural problem than a question of the tools. I strongly suspect that as the current batch of entitled kids age out, this will get better. Elementary schools are pretty good at inclusion these days.

And yet, countries with fire arm restrictions have little to no school shootings.

[Celritannia]

None of which cause harm, do they?

A firearm is a tool designed to injure or harm.
A car is a tool to go to places, yet humans being imperfect, there is insurance and taxes on them, and anyone who drives needs a licence.

Cars hurt more people by far than guns. And you do not need a driver's license or insurance to acquire a car, just to operate it on public roads. Not even on private roads.

History shows that a free press is far more destabilizing than firearms to a society.

True, they certainly do cause damage, which is why I am not sure I wish to drive, but that's more about my anxiety of driving than anything.

The free press only destabilises a society if the information is not accurate and radicalises people over something which cause them to do harm.
Again, countries with a lies and horrendous news stories in their papers have strict firearm legislation.

[Kernen]

I honestly don't think that one needs to take preventative measures to stop mass shootings beyond the security measures already used. Mass shootings are, almost to a man, angry young white conservative men who feel so entitled to their validation or revenge that they don't have a problem with killing innocents. Its far more of a cultural problem than a question of the tools. I strongly suspect that as the current batch of entitled kids age out, this will get better. Elementary schools are pretty good at inclusion these days.

And yet, countries with fire arm restrictions have little to no school shootings.

Punish the perpetrators. Not the innocents.

Cars hurt more people by far than guns. And you do not need a driver's license or insurance to acquire a car, just to operate it on public roads. Not even on private roads.

History shows that a free press is far more destabilizing than firearms to a society.

True, they certainly do cause damage, which is why I am not sure I wish to drive, but that's more about my anxiety of driving than anything.

The free press only destabilises a society if the information is not accurate and radicalises people over something which cause them to do harm.
Again, countries with a lies and horrendous news stories in their papers have strict firearm legislation.

The French Revolution's agitated but free press would like to disagree with you on that point. Not as much dishonesty as you'd think.

EDIT: oh, and the American revolution. Venezuelan. Peruvian. Columbian. Mexican. Russian. Do you need more? I can do more.

[Celritannia]

Punish the perpetrators. Not the innocents.

One school shooting in the UK, that's all it to to re-look at the firearm situation.
Too many innocents have already perished.

The French Revolution's agitated but free press would like to disagree with you on that point. Not as much dishonesty as you'd think.

EDIT: oh, and the American revolution. Venezuelan. Peruvian. Columbian. Mexican. Russian. Do you need more? I can do more.

In times of distress, people do use the media to blame people or something.
But even those countries you mentioned have fire arm restrictions in one form or another.

[Kernen]

One school shooting in the UK, that's all it to to re-look at the firearm situation.
Too many innocents have already perished.

You don't jail the neighbors when somebody commits murder. Gun owners did nothing wrong, and should not be punished for merely owning a firearm that was legal at the time of the crime when the perpetrator can be readily charged with murder.

In times of distress, people do use the media to blame people or someone.
But even those countries you mentioned have fire arm restrictions in one form or another.

I never argued that they didn't. I did argue that the media is far more destabilizing than you're giving it credit for. I don't particularly see that as a bad thing, but it is a thing.

[Diopolis]

I honestly don't think that one needs to take preventative measures to stop mass shootings beyond the security measures already used. Mass shootings are, almost to a man, angry young white conservative men who feel so entitled to their validation or revenge that they don't have a problem with killing innocents. Its far more of a cultural problem than a question of the tools. I strongly suspect that as the current batch of entitled kids age out, this will get better. Elementary schools are pretty good at inclusion these days.

And yet, countries with fire arm restrictions have little to no school shootings.

Finland and Germany have both had mass casualty attacks in the past week or so.

[Telconi]

And yet, countries with fire arm restrictions have little to no school shootings.

Finland and Germany have both had mass casualty attacks in the past week or so.

It's not about deaths, it's about politically convenient deaths.

[The Two Jerseys]

And yet, countries with fire arm restrictions have little to no school shootings.

Finland and Germany have both had mass casualty attacks in the past week or so.

Remember when Norway had a mass shooting that was deadlier than any shooting in the US?

[Ors Might]

Finland and Germany have both had mass casualty attacks in the past week or so.

It's not about deaths, it's about politically convenient deaths.

I wonder what sweeping legislation Finland and Germany will enact in regards to the tools used to commit the crimes. All it ought to take is one incident for increased regulations.

[Flawless Walruses]

It's not about deaths, it's about politically convenient deaths.

I wonder what sweeping legislation Finland and Germany will enact in regards to the tools used to commit the crimes. All it ought to take is one incident for increased regulations.

Germany has history. Finland has Russia next door. History has taught them that reducing the risk of private-sector murders by increasing the risk of public-sector mass murders is not a good trade.

[Diopolis]

It's not about deaths, it's about politically convenient deaths.

I wonder what sweeping legislation Finland and Germany will enact in regards to the tools used to commit the crimes. All it ought to take is one incident for increased regulations.

The Finnish attack was carried out with a sword. Currently Finnish laws ban publicly carrying knives with exceptions but do not regulate their ownership; the law is not enforced and doesn't seem to distinguish between swords and knives. At least according to the first page of google results. It's very possible that Finland might enact some kind of sword control law in the near future.
The German mass shooting used molotov cocktails and firecrackers, which are hard to ban, grenades, which seem to already be illegal in germany, and what the guardian variously describes as an automatic rifle and a homemade pistol. My guess is probably a crappy AR or AK variant. Regardless it's difficult to see how German gun control can get a whole lot stricter without going full China.