This is not normal

[Unseen]

@Noel

My thoughts? I think it’s weird that in 2023 we’re being governed according to laws written over 200 years ago courtesy of a Supreme Court that apparently operates as if nothing has happened since.

The 2nd Amendment needs to be at least clarified and, better, rewritten to reflect the realities and weapons of today.

[Unseen]

@Robert

It should be obvious. Arguing from analogy, if you have more cars, you’ll have more auto accidents; if you have more swimming pools, you’ll have more drownings; and if you have more guns, there will inevitably be more gun-related deaths. And that’s without regard to concentrating only on murder and mayhem.

[TheEncogitationer]

Noel and Jake,

There are already laws regulating guns used in the commission of crimes, namely laws against Murder, Felony Murder, Manslaughter, Unjustifiable Homicide, Forcible Rape, Kidnapping, Child Abuse, Assault With A Deadly Weapon, Firing In An Occupied Building or Dwelling, Theft of Weapons, and Attempted and Aiding and Abetting of all of the aforementioned crimes. These and similar laws are all the regulations a free society needs for personal arms.

And while personal arms, when holstered, sheathed, or stored are not pointed and are no threat, Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Weapons (NBC 🎶 *BOOM! BOOOOM! BOOM!* 🎶) that can react without intention are inherently pointing at others and do require additional control. That we do have to farm out to Governments, while also keeping Governments in check on how they use them.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 10 months ago by TheEncogitationer. Reason: Closing a tag

[jakelafort]

Enco, i’ve WANTED to exercise my free will to allow your comments to go unchallenged low these many months until finally the will is nill.

SAYS YOU MISTAH:

There are already laws regulating guns used in the commission of crimes, namely laws against Murder, Felony Murder, Manslaughter, Unjustifiable Homicide, Forcible Rape, Kidnapping, Child Abuse, Assault With A Deadly Weapon, Firing In An Occupied Building or Dwelling, Theft of Weapons, and Attempted and Aiding and Abetting of all of the aforementioned crimes. These and similar laws are all the regulations a free society needs for personal arms.

And while personal arms, when holstered, sheathed, or stored are not pointed and are no threat, Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Weapons (NBC 🎶 *BOOM! BOOOOM! BOOM!* 🎶) that can react without intention are inherently pointing at others and do require additional control. That we do have to farm out to Governments, while also keeping Governments in check on how they use them.

SANITY SPEAKING:

You get cute funny, fresh and silly in your scribbles. I am guilty of that as well. However you are confusing in your choice of words that are dispositive of actual issues. There are laws regulating guns used in the commission of crimes? NO. There are criminal laws against the aforementioned criminal acts. There may or may not be regulations or laws regarding possession and use of firearms.( Laws are statutes passed by the legislature that may for instance define criminal conduct. Regulations are typically promulgated by agencies and are utilized to produce rules that enforce policies of various acts.)

You are arguing that we have criminal laws that obviate the need for control of personal firearms. Mightn’t it make sense to deny citizens or certain citizens certain firearms? A blanket of free access to firearms will result in greater numbers of rape, kidnapping and a litany of crimes mentioned and unmentioned. Should first graders have unlimited access to firearms and be allowed to take to school? Should the most lethal firearms now and in future be free access to ALL citizens? I could go on and on but it is pretty obvious how stupid your stance is. And BTW is this stance on unnecessary laws analogous to your brilliant stand against hate crimes? You know, those TRICK LAWS!

You don’t trust governments. We have to keep em in check. No argument there. Businesses on the other hand are the repository of integrity and keeper of the faith errr free markets. No issue with allowing businesses to go unregulated lest we upset the free market. Cuz power corrupts in one setting-government but not in business? Oh….i see…

[TheEncogitationer]

Unseen,

It should be obvious. Arguing from analogy, if you have more cars, you’ll have more auto accidents; if you have more swimming pools, you’ll have more drownings; and if you have more guns, there will inevitably be more gun-related deaths. And that’s without regard to concentrating only on murder and mayhem.

Ackshuyally, that’s not necessarily true. Ownership of home-based pools is up from previous times, yet fatal drownings have gone down over the years, mostly due to increased and diffused knowledge of swimming, floating, and First Aid/CPR, as well as applied knowledge to devices that surveil and secure pool access, as well as devices to secure drains, filters, and other dangerous parts of pools, and floatation devices with bright colors.

Also, there have been fewer auto accidents and road fatalities, even with a slight increase in driving, due to knowledge applied in new electronic safety devices, (not to mention a greater aging of the population and fewer young people driving even when they are of age to get licenses.)

I’ll provide the links below, since there is a limit on links per post.

But the main point is: mere presence of dangerous items does not automatically increase injuries or deaths. There are also involved the little things of knowledge and the agency to use it. (You know, the agency which everyone says we don’t have, yet everyone is soaking in it.)

• This reply was modified 2 years, 10 months ago by TheEncogitationer. Reason: Spelling on tiny phone

[TheEncogitationer]

Unseen,

Here are the pool drowning stats. While no accidental death is good, it is not correlated with mere presence of pools and safety is getting much better:

New CPSC Report: Fatal Drownings in Pools Involving Young Children Decreases By 17 Percent Nationwide Since 2010
Release Date: May 23, 2017
https://www.cpsc.gov/content/new-cpsc-report-fatal-drownings-in-pools-involving-young-children-decreases-by-17-percent

Here below, the CPSC says drowning deaths went down an additional 7 percent in 2020:

CPSC Issues New Drowning Report with Child Fatalities; Reminder for Extra Water Safety Vigilance
June 8, 2023
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2023/CPSC-Issues-New-Drowning-Report-with-Child-Fatalities-Reminder-for-Extra-Water-Safety-Vigilance

[TheEncogitationer]

Unseen,

Now for automobiles:

These car features could prevent your next crash
Mark Phelan Detroit Free Press
June 10, 2019
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2019/06/10/traffic-accidents-decline-because-of-car-features/1407386001/

U.S. traffic deaths down in 2023 even as more miles are driven
NHTSA estimated 9,330 people died in vehicle crashes in the first three months of the year, down 3.3 percent from the same period in 2022.
June 22, 2023 10:28 AM 17 HOURS AGO
AUDREY LAFOREST
https://www.autonews.com/regulation-safety/us-traffic-deaths-declined-first-three-months-2023

[TheEncogitationer]

Unseen,

As this applies to gun accidents, even this site below conceded that gun accidents rank 15th in accidental causes of death, with 549 in 2021, and that accidental gun deaths have been declining for a century:

How Often Are Guns Involved in Accidental Deaths?
A reader’s question unearths some troubling trends.
By Jennifer Mascia Dec 9, 2022
https://www.thetrace.org/2022/12/accidental-shootings-cdc-data-children/

Again, while accidental deaths are always tragic, I’d hardly say this is grounds for wanting to go where the guns aren’t.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 10 months ago by TheEncogitationer. Reason: Addendum

[Noel]

“And while personal arms, when holstered, sheathed, or stored are not pointed and are no threat, Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Weapons (NBC 🎶 *BOOM! BOOOOM! BOOM!* 🎶) that can react without intention are inherently pointing at others and do require additional control. That we do have to farm out to Governments, while also keeping Governments in check on how they use them.”

Yeah, you’ll not convince me to think different with that argument. I’ve heard this one before. “If I leave this gun on the table it harms no one. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”

You will never give not even an inch. If I asked you to support legislation to raise the age limit from 18 to 21 (Which I still think is too early for someone to possess a weapon but here we are). Most rental car companies won’t rent a car to anyone under the age of 25. Why 25? Because science has shown that 25 is the age that our brains reach full maturity. It’s the age where an understanding of right and wrong of good and bad of consequential thinking is ingrained. Eighteen? That’s the age where the Army wants to make you all that you can be. Why? Because science has shown that at around 18 you are more likely to take chances and you are malleable. So why would we sell semi-automatic weapons to someone who’s maturity is not fully developed, are prone to take chances, and who can be convinced to do things against the norm? (you know, like charging toward the group of people firing bullets at you and trying to kill you and not running the other way).

The gun lobby in the United States is one of the strongest political groups on the planet. Seriously. The gun lobby is bigger than cancer research. It’s why 18 year olds can walk into a gun shop, lay their hard earned money packing groceries on the counter and walk out with an AR-15 replete with all the accessories. Try that in Australia. But even this won’t convince you. Hell I would think, from your argument, that if the gun lobby could lower the age of gun ownership even further, say 16, you and guys I know like you would be on board. Am I wrong?

My argument is to legislate the kinds of weapons that ordinary Joe Schmoes like me can own and use. It’s not an argument to abolish guns. That’s not what I’m saying and it’s not what the majority of Americans are saying. Gun ownership is a Right. To 2nd Ammender’s it’s probably the biggest and best right trumping all others. I would like to not have to think that the guy next door, in a neighborhood of 9,000 people where the last murder occurred in 1958 due to a domestic dispute, is not armed to the gills with the type of weapons the military uses because he thinks that any day now a squad of fully armed men (and woman) are going to kick down his door and start shooting. How often does this scenario even happen?

Your other argument: Protect ourselves from our government. Yeah, I can see that. Just that the National Guard, The U.S. Army, The Marine Corp, The U.S. Navy, The Coast Guard, Homeland Security. Have you ever been on an aircraft carrier? Have you ever actually seen the size of a 1000 pound general purpose bomb? Have you ever been exposed to the sheer power of Pratt and Whitney engines in a modern jet fighter as it roars off the catapult? And here you and your 20 buddies at the gun range are with your AR-15’s.

[_Robert_]

I wonder why we never have any RPG or hand grenade killings? Let’s sell 100’s of millions of them to the public and see what happens, LOL. I’m sure we will all be even safer. The more guns=safety argument is simply idiotic and proven wrong by every country that has strongly regulated arms. Sure, we have the NRA’s target audience; millions of under-fathered, man-boys who feel emasculated or left out because of recent societal changes and want an “equalizer”. Maybe we can work on fixing that that root cause. And the stupid ass movie makers can’t think of anything else except shoot-outs and car chases.

[TheEncogitationer]

PopeBeanie,

Oh, the rabbit holes we seek and advertise. Such responses to Belle’s immediate concern are of course related to her concern, but off track especially when issuing black and white statements that seriously ignore the fact that there are both safer places and more dangerous places where one can move to. @Enco, in Belle’s case, are you actually recommending that she find a way to dig in where she is, and that arming herself in place is her best solution? I don’t think you are, but you’re instead making a pro-gun statement in response to other anti-gun statements.

Y’all, I did like learning about POVs WRT US Constitutional interpretation, but I see POVs WRT one’s personal anxiety over finding safety as the main theme here. How USA, in general, is so unique in the world regarding the prevalence of gun violence deserves a separate topic, on its own. Any other real suggestions for Belle?

My life-saving suggestion to Belle Rose is the same that I make to anyone anywhere they find themselves, the same life-saving suggestion that is made to me in my workplace every 90 days or anytime there is a mass shooting, whichever comes first, based on tried-and-true wisdom from law enforcement experts at Texas State University:

Avoid, Deny, Defend.

“Avoid” means as fast as possible to get away from the attacker to a place of safety and help others do the same. In a workplace, for example, it means run for the emergency exits, which, of course, should always be functioning and unimpeded.

“Deny” means to deny access of your space to the attacker. For example, close, lock, and barricade entry, turn out lights, turn off sound and screens for TVs, computers, smartphones and devices, stay away from windows, get behind solid barriers, get out of the attacker’s line-of-sight.

“Defend” means if all this fails to keep your attacker away, be ready to fight for your life with anything on hand, a letter opener, a fire extinguisher, a chair, a coffee pot, or, yes, a gun. Go for the weak points of the eyes, nose, the thorax in the throat, the groin. Secondary targets are the solar plexus or “breadbasket,”, stepping on the foot, the shins, and the vagus nerve or “funny bone.” In the case of using a gun, go for center mass where all the vital organs are located.

Do not fight fair! This is a fight for survival! Marquess of Queensbury Rules are only for Marquess of Queensbury people. Keep striking until the attacker is down and the threat is ended.

When law enforcement shows up (it’s always after the fact,) keep your hands empty and open, follow them out of the area which is now a crime scene, and answer their questions as best as you can recall.

I might add, if the law enforcers are the morally inverted kind who seek to prosecute self-defense over thuggery, say nothing except “I wish to speak to an attorney.”

Unlike Hoplophobic gun control freaks, I trust in Belle Rose’s intellect and agency to find ways to apply “Avoid, Deny, and Defend” to the context of her own life. Everyone’s context is different and I won’t presume to comment on things I don’t know.

As for better and worse places to go, yes, there are those. In the United States, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine have almost no gun restrictions, yet have none of the crime and mayhem found in New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and California, which are all tight on gun control. If I could get to New Hampshire from North Carolina by ferry boat and avoid the Babylon in between, I surely would.

[TheEncogitationer]

Jake, Noel, and Robert,

I’ll get to knocking down your Strawmen later. Meanwhile, I’m having to shoo away the the pollen they create and the rat’s warrens they foster. 🤧🐀

[Unseen]

@Enco

Fewer guns, fewer gun deaths. Why isn’t this obvious. If we cut the number of cars and trucks on the road by 50%, there would surely be at least a 50% reduction in traffic deaths. If we made it so hard to have a backyard swimming pool that we cut the number of them by 40%, surely there’d be a 40% decline in accidental drownings.

Of course, there’s the other way. We could make cars and swimming pools safer and reduce those deaths that way.

The problem is, the gun industry and their shills, the NRA, and also the bulk of the gun-huggers themselves, don’t want any solution other than handing out more guns.

Are you of the mindset that we need to have guns everywhere in case of a need for a second revolution to overthrow a government the people with the most guns don’t like so that they can establish their values in place of the ones established by the Constitution.

Look around you, Enco. The people who wanted to undue the last election, which the courts have established to be free and fair, were very much the pro-gun people. They want to take us back to 1954 when women were relatively powerless, when black folks couldn’t look forward to much more than a life of servitude due to low wages and low job prospects. Those are the values of the gun people who want another revolution, Enco.

Yet, the only solution is to become gun-huggers ourselves, according to your ilk.

We don’t (yet) have an active civil war going on, and yet our gun deaths are comparable to those of countries which are undergoing internal strife.

And you don’t see guns as a key part of our problem?

“Guns don’t kill people. People kill people” is true…in one sense. People who see guns as a way of getting their way kill people. People who like guns kill people.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 10 months ago by Unseen.

[TheEncogitationer]

PopeBeanie,

I meant to say “Queensberry” not “Queensbury,” but that just accentuates the point that regular rules of polite society don’t apply in a fight for survival. Nice catch, I must say. 😁

[TheEncogitationer]

Unseen,

Fewer guns, fewer gun deaths. Why isn’t this obvious. If we cut the number of cars and trucks on the road by 50%, there would surely be at least a 50% reduction in traffic deaths. If we made it so hard to have a backyard swimming pool that we cut the number of them by 40%, surely there’d be a 40% decline in accidental drownings.

If there were no guns, then there would be more knife crimes, arrow crimes, club crimes, stone crimes, pointed stick crimes, fist bludgeoning crimes etc.

If there were fewer cars and trucks, there would be more deaths with shipping, boating, horseback riding, bicycles, pedestrian traffic, not to mention deaths by pathogens spread by horse shit, starvation and thirst from lack of transportation hauling food and water, etc.

And fewer or no swimming pools means more deaths by drowning in creeks, lakes, rivers, and oceans, plus deaths by every other competing form of recreation.

Of course, there’s the other way. We could make cars and swimming pools safer and reduce those deaths that way.

What I said earlier if you were were paying attention.

The problem is, the gun industry and their shills, the NRA, and also the bulk of the gun-huggers themselves, don’t want any solution other than handing out more guns.

You mean the people that also sell gun holsters, gun safes, trigger locks, cleaning supplies to prevent blocked barrels and firing actions, not to mention assembly lessons to assure working order, shooting lessons at ranges, and safety lessons for children?

Are you of the mindset that we need to have guns everywhere in case of a need for a second revolution to overthrow a government the people with the most guns don’t like so that they can establish their values in place of the ones established by the Constitution.

Arms, properly used, are to preserve Life, Liberty, and Property, regardless of who is the enemy.

Look around you, Enco. The people who wanted to undue the last election, which the courts have established to be free and fair, were very much the pro-gun people. They want to take us back to 1954 when women were relatively powerless, when black folks couldn’t look forward to much more than a life of servitude due to low wages and low job prospects. Those are the values of the gun people who want another revolution, Enco.

For your information, the legislative history of The Fourteenth Amendment clearly shows that one of reasons the Reconstructionists argued for the passage of this Amendment was that the Governments of the former Slave States were passing laws forbidding the newly freed slaves from keeping and bearing arms in self-defense against terrorist attacks by the Ku Klux Klan. The Fourteenth Amendment passed and throughout the Reconstruction Era to Plessy v. Ferguson and the Jim Crow Era, freed slaves had the means of self-defense at their disposal. It is to our nation’s shame that the right to keep and bear arms wasn’t consistently upheld to this day. See Don. B. Kate’s, Jr.’s fascinating work Gun Control: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out for more fascinating history on this subject.

Also, the first State in the Union that upheld women’s elective franchise was Wyoming. Men in Wyoming were not necessarily more enlightened than men anywhere else, but Wyoming did have a co-ed male and female gun culture, so women naturally commanded respect as a result. (No word about Trans gun culture in history, but I’m sure that one could read it between the lines somewhere.)

Yet, the only solution is to become gun-huggers ourselves, according to your ilk.

I always say: I’m not a ‘bitter clinger.’. I’m a ‘cool caresser.’😎

We don’t (yet) have an active civil war going on, and yet our gun deaths are comparable to those of countries which are undergoing internal strife.

And you don’t see guns as a key part of our problem?

There are many problem humans, but the problems in human creations are in the purposes to which problem humans put those creations.

“Guns don’t kill people. People kill people” is true…in one sense. People who see guns as a way of getting their way kill people. People who like guns kill people.

Those who plunder, enslave, and murder and those who act to permanently stop plunder, slavery, and murder are not morally equivalent.

[Author]

Posts