Las Vegas...

JLSpinner wrote: Although this is generalizing and stereo typing.

That is another thing I feel useful to consider. Today politics have been cracking down on this idea of Stereo Typing. However....If the shoe fits....

We are becoming so afraid to speak out against things, events and behaviors that draws red flags because we are afraid we will be attacked ourselves by social correctness.

We need to get away from that and both SEE and UNDERSTAND what it is we are seeing and not be afraid to point and say "Hey. This guy is displaying signs of x, y & z." without fear of being attacked for intervening in something that could lead to future tragedy.

JLSpinner wrote: No, we will never stop them all. But if even one can be prevented it's worth discussing.

Most of these cases portray the attackers with a few forms of profile. Fanatic, loner, or angered. Perhaps we should take stock of those we interact with. Try to invest time with those whom might fit the bill. Although this is generalizing and stereo typing. I'm just tossing ideas around.

Indeed. I think the main point of making access to capable weapons more difficult is that it makes it harder for that person to plan, organize and prepare the act. It would reduce the instances of it being spur of the moment, whether that is anger or mental illness (which can manifest in 'bursts' in some types) etc, while also giving the authorities more time for their 'planning' to raise a red flag with friends, shops through buying patterns etc. So it is a very real way way to offset the advantage that person will get from the weapons over otherwise peaceful normal activity, since the big problem is there is basically nothing which will ever stop all violent crime.

And so in the same way it doesn't really matter how many citizens are packing heat either, because an offender has the advantage of surprise and planning. What is a risk is if the weapons become too capable such that the authorities cannot respond in time with no prior warning to stop massive casualties. Things like M4's were originally designed as military weapons and AFAIK their later civilian derivatives have always been possible to modify back to military spec with a bit of engineering work. No-one needs a self loading rifle to defend themselves, unless its against someone else with the same - but then it is going to come down to a wide range of elements all greatly benefited from that element of surprise held by the offender to begin with, and that assumes only one offender.

You cannot defeat surprise by having a bigger weapon, you instead need better protection and awareness so that any subsequent response (if still alive) to the surprise can be more effective in recovering from it.

So IMO no-one really needs the sustained high rate of 'ranged' fire possible with ease from a semi-automatic rifle. A handgun in self defence application really does benefit from a high rate of fire because the target being at close range can change its position bearing faster by virtue of being closer. Eg for something to move through 90 degrees from the shooters point of view at 10 yards range is easier and faster then for something to move through 90 degrees for the shooter out at 500 yards.

So its a nice dream to think an arsenal is going to make one safer, but in reality I still think the best course for the US is to outlaw self loading rifles, but retain semi-handguns, and of course allow rifles like bolt action or pump action (which still can have a high rate of fire). To me that is the best compromise. Not so easy to pull off though I guess. You can 3d print a simple pistol these days, and even making bump stock sales illegal will not work because they could be 3D printed and bolted onto the otherwise mil-spec civilian semi-auto rifle. As usual the rich will be able to protect themselves and its the rest of us which have to put up with the slide of consumer driven tech growth.

To whoever it applies, the rationalization for the right to also bear arms isn't because the world is filled with bad people. It's that there are bad people period.

People who don't care about laws and regulations. Only about themselves. It's a part of this world. We shouldn't fear the darkness but be aware of its influence in the world and in ourselves.

Besides, if there are regulations that exist and fail to regulate what they were enacted for, those regulations are useless. As if they were null and void. In fact, law shouldn't be used for control, but for rectification. That form of governance can only bring suffering..

Be careful with the thought that you need to rationalize someone else's need in order to accept their actions..

Sure, we can try to eliminate the level of violence by enforcing the policies of whatever ruling state is in power. However, we're not truly solving the problem.

Take the SW myth. The Republic had laws against slavery and other "human rights" violations. Which the Jedi enforced, when called to.. still though, those violations continued and were aided by the corruption within the system.. The Jedi, in only serving The Republic and its law, instead of The Force and its mission to life, allowed the true suffering to continue. While being deceived into believing they were upholding peace and justice through force of law. Serving the "noble" republic..

Adder wrote: You cannot defeat surprise by having a bigger weapon, you instead need better protection and awareness so that any subsequent response (if still alive) to the surprise can be more effective in recovering from it.

Not saying you meant anything by it or pointing this at you or your comment specifically....but your comment did make me think of a senario close to home.

My sister works in a hotel. She cleans rooms....very basic and common work for hotel employee's. Hotels bring in all kinds of people. Truckers for example.

One such trucker who is listed as a "Common Problem" in the police data base and has harrassed other members of my sister's team....cornered my sister, pushed her into an empty room and shut the door behind him promising to do terrible things to her. She was helpless to this and was only lucky by the fact that others seen it happen and intervened.

She pressed charges.

The cops told her that she didn't have enough piled against the guy to do so and then proceeded to tell her that she should simply learn to defend herself better. That it was her fault for falling into this situation.

Her boss and higher up's at the job told her that the only defense she was allowed to have...was by putting her trolly into the doorway of the room she worked on.

Not everyone is able to "Better protection and awareness" not everyone is capable of such benefits even in secure places like hotels with security guards and background history of martial arts classes on the weekends. Life doesn't work that way. It is not a simple matter of being better defended. That is why gun's became a form of defense in the first place.....at some point.....the playing field has to become leveled somehow. I could never protect myself against a man bigger and stronger than me....not physically. I could with a taurus though.

I started this topic, and I have purposely ignored it for a few days to take a step back and try to be rational when considering the arguments of others. What I’ve learned upon catching up is that the common theme among people advocating for personal freedom when it comes to gun ownership is fear. You are afraid, and your fear justifies your irrational ignorance about the actual statistics.

I’m not calling anyone stupid or cowardly. I’m saying that if fear causes someone to ignore math based on facts, it leads to irrational behavior. Ignoring strong evidence for causation of a certain trend in favor of the answer that makes you feel safe is dangerous.

The number of deaths caused by guns in the US is a verifiable fact, and it is a vastly larger number than deaths caused by trucks or bombs or machetes or lighters or knives or whatever other weapon is used. It is also ridiculously higher in the US than any other industrialized nation in the world. Again, this is simple math.

I accept that people will pull out the Second Amendment from 230 some years ago thinking it gives you reasons to own semi-automatic rifles, but that is because you are afraid. A rational Jedi, free of 5his fear, understands that even walking down the street everyday with an AR will not protect you from everything. It simply increases the risk of you doing harm to someone else. This is not what our Doctrine teaches at all.

This isnt an issue of what hardware you should be able to own as much as why you think you need to own it. You are afraid, and that is the issue. Whether it’s criminals or the government or wolves, you want a gun because you are afraid of something and feel the need to defend yourself. News flash. We’re all going to die. Some of us sooner than later. Your gun might stop a mugging today, but cancer will still kill you next year. It’s time to stop living in fear and accept that you will never outgun everyone wishing you harm. What we should be doing is reducing reasons people would wish to do others harm in the first place. Guns are not the answer to this. Empathy, compassion, and reasonable action based on facts and evidence is the answer. Fear is not.

I know people don’t want to hear this, but being closely associated with two mass shootings in two years has not changed my mind. I am not afraid and I won’t carry a gun outside of my house unless I am going to the range or hunting. I know many others won’t, so I realize that it is pointless to argue with people motivated by fear. Instead, I’ll focus on getting people who are also unafraid elected so they can make the changes we need. You know, people like Gabby Giffords. People who will respond to extreme violence against themselves without bowing to those who commit it, but rather confidently stand up and say “no more”.

Senan, I don't think telling people that it's okay to get shot because you're going to die anyway is going to help. It's not irrational to want some protection in modern America. I don't carry but I don't blame others for wanting to. That being said more accountability for gun owners might help keep unregulated sales down and prevent guns getting in the wrong hands.

Senan wrote: You are afraid

You are 100% correct. Yes. I am afraid. And I have every right to be.

and your fear justifies.....

Yes. Yes it does. What of it?

your irrational ignorance about the actual statistics.

This is where you are wrong. You just want to be right and only want to see things your way.

I’m not calling anyone stupid or cowardly.

Except that you just did

I’m saying that if fear causes someone to ignore math based on facts,

And assumed passive logic dosn't do much better lol

Ignoring strong evidence for causation of a certain trend in favor of the answer that makes you feel safe is dangerous.

The number of deaths caused by guns in the US is a verifiable fact, and it is a vastly larger number than deaths caused by trucks or bombs or machetes or lighters or knives or whatever other weapon is used. It is also ridiculously higher in the US than any other industrialized nation in the world. Again, this is simple math.

Math is not a logical reason to surrender our rights of gun ownership. When you can give me a logical way to get rid of ALL guns at the same time....including all knowledge of how to build and manufacture guns under the table. Then we will talk.

......walking down the street everyday with an AR ]/quote]

Who here said they were walking down the street with an AR? I know I sure didn't. In fact ive stated often that I only carry a Taurus. And I believe others have only mentioned pistols for street protection.

No. AR, AK, Semi Auto Rifles are home defense and back of truck for long outdoor vacation trips.

The only reason why you see people these days walking around publicly and in full view with these weapons are because they are making a political statement. A stupid and asking for trouble one. But a statement none the less.

This isnt an issue of what hardware you should be able to own as much as why you think you need to own it.

Except that it is the hardware you and others are attempting to regulate, ban and control.

As to the rest....I have run out of time. Gotta get ready for work now. So.....to end this post.....I don't quite appreciate the fact that you have chosen to put our Practice of Jedi and the Doctrine on the line because of our choices that do not align with your own. I never question your Jedi qualities.... I feel I am doing the right thing for me and my family. That should be good enough.

Every time i come back to this discussion i have the same reaction. Many of you have been sheltered and protected well enough that you dont know that the world is inherently violent, and that death and predation are always close by. You have the sincere assumption of safety. You believe (at the emotional level) that the world is basically safe- and that its SUPPOSED to be safe. That you are OWED safety by the rest of your society. Nice as that sounds, it is in total contradiction to the actual nature of life, and even of reality itself. I cant bring myself to hope that the bubble of your naivety is burst, but, since you dont know what youre talking about on this topic, i also cant bring myself to take your position seriously.

Violence is always within arms length (though you dont notice it), as is death, and it is your responsibility to be prepared to respond to it on the day that it reaches out for YOU. Making the rest of the world harmless will never work: make yourself dangerous instead.

Reasonable gun laws and means of enforcing them, yes. We do need to review what those ought to be.
But i am owning the weapons that i feel are most appropriate to my own defense, and theres not anything you can say to make me unlearn the importance of that, which ive learned through personal experience. Understand that or dont understand it, it is what it is and im willing to express it but im not going to argue about it.

Senan wrote: ... What I’ve learned upon catching up is that the common theme among people advocating for personal freedom when it comes to gun ownership is fear. You are afraid, and your fear justifies your irrational ignorance about the actual statistics. ...

I’m not calling anyone stupid or cowardly. I’m saying that if fear causes someone to ignore math based on facts, it leads to irrational behavior. Ignoring strong evidence for causation of a certain trend in favor of the answer that makes you feel safe is dangerous.

Fear could just as easily be applied as the basis for arguments on the opposite side of the spectrum. It is a human condition. Jedi or not. People throughout time are constantly afraid of something, anything, equal to, leading to, and including our impending deaths.

Senan wrote: ... The number of deaths caused by guns in the US is a verifiable fact, and it is a vastly larger number than deaths caused by trucks or bombs or machetes or lighters or knives or whatever other weapon is used. It is also ridiculously higher in the US than any other industrialized nation in the world. Again, this is simple math.

In the U.S., sure...even without statistics I would accept these assertions to be true. Because guns are more prevalent in the U.S. So we need to compare the same to places that are "not" in the U.S. Perhaps we could look at places like Rwanda, where 800,000+ people were murdered with machetes, in just a couple months...Semi-automatic military grade weapons may have cause that number to be higher, or the timeframe to be shorter...but they also may have significantly reduced that number, or prevented it from occurring at all. Just sayin.

Senan wrote: ... A rational Jedi, free of his fear, understands that even walking down the street everyday with an AR will not protect you from everything. It simply increases the risk of you doing harm to someone else. This is not what our Doctrine teaches at all.

Fear or the absence of fear is neither rational nor irrational. What you may be afraid of may seem irrational to me, and being unafraid of anything is not directly related to whether one is rational or not. Simply owning/carrying a firearm does not inherently increase "my" risk of doing harm to another...it increases my capability to do so, but capability is not risk.

Driving a car may increase my risk of doing harm to another, unless I operate the vehicle safely, within the guidance of applicable laws. Drinking a beer could be said to increase my risk of doing harm to another, unless I am a responsible drinker, and do so within the guidance of applicable laws. Drinking a beer while driving a car may increase my risk of doing harm to another...and this is illegal...across the board...yet people still die every day in drunk driving accidents. How can this be so? We are aware of the risk, the public is aware of the risk, we have addressed it with all manner of law and enforcement of law, but still it happens....because not everyone chooses to acknowledge the risk or follow the law all the time. Under the same line of thinking with regard to gun violence, the only other option would be to place further restrictions on the purchase/use of motor vehicles for EVERYONE, whether or not they drink alcohol, or have ever been in an accident, or received a moving violation of any sort.

I mean, driving a car is not even referred to at all in the constitution or bill of rights. In the modernity argument, the right to ride a horse or a buggy is also noticeably absent. We do not even treat the ability to travel at all as an inherent human right. It is consistently viewed as a privilege, not a right. Yet we still fall dramatically short in curbing the risk and the threats of automobile accidents, injuries, and deaths at all, and remain ineffective in reducing drunk driving incidents. So with an area of the law where substantial risk is imminent, and injury and death are incredibly frequent, without any constitutional questions at all, we still cannot figure out how to solve the issue, why should we be able to do so with gun violence?

*************

At what point can we get away from the rhetoric, the statistics, the my side is more reasonable than your side arguments, and look for solutions behind the issues rather than those that seem obvious to us?

Perhaps it is not the weapon, the tool, the vehicle, or anything mechanical at all which is the cause of these issues...but an intrinsically human relations problem we obviously suffer from. Why would a gun owner violate the sanctity of life? Why would a social drinker try to drive home and violate the sanctity of life? What is that inner switch that differs one from another, or them from a responsible party at all?

These sorts of questions or solutions to things along these lines seem far more likely to produce reasonable results than disallowing anyone from driving a car ever again...do they not?