Another CO shooting.

Raees wrote:

FredHayek wrote: I need to ask the Boulder PD what they used.

He used a shotgun.

That's not very sporting.

Nah... Should-a used a hammer...

I don't really believe that that individuals always have an inherent right to own firearms in all cases. It is certainly true for for people who live in sparsely populated areas where they have no neighbors and never interact with anyone else, but as soon as they live in a "society", then a lot of rights that we hold dear "come" from the consent of their community - they're just conventions that are chosen to so that everybody can get along productively. It'd be nice to have complete freedom to do whatever you want, but that's just incompatible with living in a community where your actions impact the lives of those around you. Unfortunately, people can't pick where they're born (and it is unnecessarily complicated to move to other countries), so those rules are imposed on us in a unilateral manner, without our consent, and with the threat of force, but that's pretty much life - most of the earth is occupied and there's not much room for anyone to have their own sovereign nation anymore. I'm all for humans having the right to be left alone as much as possible, but that's difficult in densely populated areas, because interactions are inevitable and your neighbor's freedom necessarily has to stop where your freedom begins.

Pretty much nothing in the Bill of Rights or the Declaration of Independence is absolute. We deny prisoners the right to free speech and association. We deny felons the right to own firearms. We execute criminals (weren't they entitled to "life"?). I guess we do have liberty, since that is by definition a limited freedom where you're not impacting the freedom of others, but that's about it.

As for when the use of force is moral, my general philosophy on this (and I make no claims at being good at philosophy) is that it is immoral to unnecessarily hurt others. I'm fine with using force to defend one's life and the life of their loved ones. I'm less fine with the use of force to defend property - part of living in a civil society is giving up the "Wild West" "every man for himself" freedom for a system of laws and police protection (which, when it works well, is a huge improvement, because it frees you up to do productive things instead of spending all your time defending your property). Having a social safety net helps too, because then fewer people are stealing to support their family (is it immoral to steal to save your child's life?)

I wouldn't say that rights don't exist without government, but the rights you'd get in the ideal "state of nature" aren't necessarily the same as the rights you get in a civil society. It's just inevitable that you'll have to give up some personal freedom to avoid being negatively affected by the exercise of that same freedom by your neighbors. Each society needs to agree on where they want to put that balance - it's a messy process and, as nice as it'd be if everyone had a say, a lot of it is determined by historical reasons (one of the reasons I like that Jefferson quote about Constitutions expiring every generation).

So yes, I don't deny that gun restrictions render individuals less able to defend themselves. That's unfortunate (and part of why I'd somewhat prefer that private gun ownership continue, though I do want to see it restricted more than it is now), but it's a decision that's coming from the consent of the governed, because part of living in a community is giving up some freedoms for the common good. The whole "America: Love it or Leave It" thing is obnoxious, but it's hard to be "free" when you've got 300M neighbors, and the line between "majority rules" and "these rights are too important give up under any circumstances" is really hard to draw sometimes.

But gun ownership continues to rise as America gets more urban yet per capital deaths by firearms continues to decline. So maybe it isn't the guns or the video games or violent movies. BTW 40 years ago a Black Panther shot 19 people including 10 policeman with a five shot pistol calibre carbine after setting fire to a hotel. Took police in helicopters to take him out on the roof of the hotel so these multiple shootings aren't new.

LadyJazzer wrote:

Science Chic wrote:

Isn't sensible just a word you use when practical does not apply, when you just want your way, just because, despite evidence, you just want it.

Since doing the stuff that is happening is already very illegal. Shooting folks violates all kinds of laws.

Is the fundamental argument for restricting these things that if we make it even more illegal, that this increased level of illegality will slow this stuff down? Wouldn't that just be an argument for harsher penalties after a shooting?

I assume no one is ACTUALLY proposing that banning any guns, that already exist, with laws on paper will make guns go away. I just don't think the shootings will be any less harmful if we can all say the gun came from the black market.

I guess that is why it is sensible to restrict guns, but not practical...at least you can say you did something, even if you knew it would not have an effect, it will look good in the newsy.

In the ends rights only come from your ability to defend them, if your govt will defend them, you may have them and your rights come from them, if you can defend them, you can have them and your rights come from you, if another friend or group will defend them, you may have them and your rights came from them. If no one will defend your rights, you wont have them, so they came from no one. I am not under the misconception that anyone could use a piddly little gun or set of guns to defend their rights from the govt as a whole, but I must say that one of the little things that keeps people in govt in line is knowing that someone around you could shoot you at any give time. Violence is just about the only tool that is used to keep others in line when you cannot convince them to do so. Threats of violence is just about the only tool in the end that keeps someone from violating what you think are your rights, but once violated, it becomes clear they were not rights, or you would still have them. In order to have equal rights, we must all be able to defend them equally, this includes the govt. What ever tools the govt is allowed to use to defend itself from you or to defend you, you should be able to use to defend yourself from others. I am not suggesting military shame death war tools, I am suggesting that any weapon that can be used legally against the citizens by the govt should qualify to be owned by citizens, that would provide for equal rights, it is called keeping people honest. It is called that because they don't have a choice to misbehave because they will get corrected.

So as we having been saying, if they want to do harm to people they will, by whatever means they feel will do the job and they can get their hands on.

Police Foil Teen's Bomb Plot on School

http://gma.yahoo.com/police-foil-teens- ... ories.html

Raees wrote: I don't really believe that that individuals always have an inherent right to own firearms in all cases. It is certainly true for for people who live in sparsely populated areas where they have no neighbors and never interact with anyone else, but as soon as they live in a "society", then a lot of rights that we hold dear "come" from the consent of their community - they're just conventions that are chosen to so that everybody can get along productively. It'd be nice to have complete freedom to do whatever you want, but that's just incompatible with living in a community where your actions impact the lives of those around you. Unfortunately, people can't pick where they're born (and it is unnecessarily complicated to move to other countries), so those rules are imposed on us in a unilateral manner, without our consent, and with the threat of force, but that's pretty much life - most of the earth is occupied and there's not much room for anyone to have their own sovereign nation anymore. I'm all for humans having the right to be left alone as much as possible, but that's difficult in densely populated areas, because interactions are inevitable and your neighbor's freedom necessarily has to stop where your freedom begins.

Pretty much nothing in the Bill of Rights or the Declaration of Independence is absolute. We deny prisoners the right to free speech and association. We deny felons the right to own firearms. We execute criminals (weren't they entitled to "life"?). I guess we do have liberty, since that is by definition a limited freedom where you're not impacting the freedom of others, but that's about it.

As for when the use of force is moral, my general philosophy on this (and I make no claims at being good at philosophy) is that it is immoral to unnecessarily hurt others. I'm fine with using force to defend one's life and the life of their loved ones. I'm less fine with the use of force to defend property - part of living in a civil society is giving up the "Wild West" "every man for himself" freedom for a system of laws and police protection (which, when it works well, is a huge improvement, because it frees you up to do productive things instead of spending all your time defending your property). Having a social safety net helps too, because then fewer people are stealing to support their family (is it immoral to steal to save your child's life?)

I wouldn't say that rights don't exist without government, but the rights you'd get in the ideal "state of nature" aren't necessarily the same as the rights you get in a civil society. It's just inevitable that you'll have to give up some personal freedom to avoid being negatively affected by the exercise of that same freedom by your neighbors. Each society needs to agree on where they want to put that balance - it's a messy process and, as nice as it'd be if everyone had a say, a lot of it is determined by historical reasons (one of the reasons I like that Jefferson quote about Constitutions expiring every generation).

So yes, I don't deny that gun restrictions render individuals less able to defend themselves. That's unfortunate (and part of why I'd somewhat prefer that private gun ownership continue, though I do want to see it restricted more than it is now), but it's a decision that's coming from the consent of the governed, because part of living in a community is giving up some freedoms for the common good. The whole "America: Love it or Leave It" thing is obnoxious, but it's hard to be "free" when you've got 300M neighbors, and the line between "majority rules" and "these rights are too important give up under any circumstances" is really hard to draw sometimes.

Sorry I disagree with this, I do not live my life to make a community happy with me. I live my life for me and those I care about. Not for the neighbor or anyone else. I do not worry about what people think of me, as they really do not know me, I know where I have been, what I have done. I need to be happy with myself not worry about others. the so called community does not and will not dictate or consent what I can or cannot do.

WarrenK wrote:

CinnamonGirl wrote:

FredHayek wrote: CG I don't know if I agree. Murders continue to decline but I think the press is choosing to give it more coverage. Like when Bush was in office Iraq GI casualties got much more time but they were very small compared to Korea and Vietnam and got no attention when it became Obama's war. A few years ago the rage was about crime in Mexico but it had peaked awhile ago.

I think Social media is doing it and the papers are now competing with people that have no problem posting anything, like twitter. Instead of the press just coming up with better stories they have gone down in the mud with everyone.

CG, I feel your frustration. As I posted on another thread, the "news" media today does not report news, it is solely designed to influence public opinion. Its all about power and dependance. And I also agree that social media (including these forums) create an anonymous venue for people to rant and express themselves in ways they might not if actually face-to-face with someone (if I'm wrong - and they would anyway - it raises a much larger issue about where their heart is.)

The core of all this is truly a heart issue. You cannot legislate morality or civility, it has to be in one's heart. If this was not true then why are the thousands of laws already on the books not a deterrent to this evil. The "news" and social media's answer is to spread feel-good relativism or "if it's good for you its OK for you, if its good for me its OK for me." The Bible says we live in a fallen world and that we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. The true answer is Jesus Christ. Without a solid foundation and without something to compare absolute truth against, society degenerates into a free for all selfish expression of what's evil in all of us. I'm no better than anyone else and probably worse than most, but I do believe in, and put my hope in He who is better than anyone.

WarrenK I know what you are saying and I am in no way saying that this is media's fault. But what I was saying is there used to be some control over what was reported. There was a long time standard in media not to report suicides. Now with social media (twitter especially) and information getting out there real time with no standard at all there is a problem. I don't know what to do about it though.

I think Warren K is right. Jesus is the answer.

I would like to follow the path of Jesus and accept what has happened and hope for better or follow the path of those that killed him and use the same method public torture by the govt. on these gun killers, this in between place is doing no one any good and getting us no where.