Mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio

[Novalee]

the dayton shooters ex girl friend speaks

https://www.washingtonpost.com/vide...b7d7ed-842e-4e43-80d6-7526b9903088_video.html

here a ex of dayton shooter says he showed her images of the pittsburg shooting. https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2019/08/06/dayton-pittsburgh-synagogue-shooting-video/

DAYTON, Ohio (KDKA/AP) – An ex-girlfriend of the Ohio gunman who killed nine people says he showed her a video of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting on their first date.

Adelia Johnson says in an emailed statement to The Associated Press that Connor Betts often joked about having dark thoughts. She says he told her that he had bipolar disorder and that his talk didn’t scare her because she thought it was a symptom of his mental illness.

 

[Joey D]

Technically it only says that one's right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed upon - but this assumes that one has the right in the first place.

My point is, however, that federal and state laws (as well as common sense and a proper consideration of the nature of rights themselves) place limits on who has that right, and clearly not everyone has. The Constitution, therefore, only protects gun ownership for those who have a right to possess and bear arms, but does not define who has that right, or under what circumstances one's right to own a gun may be forfeited.

Ok I understand what you're saying now.

It does define who has the rights though, right in the Second Amendment it says "the people". This means the free citizens of the United States. You lose those rights if you're arrested though since you forfeit your rights. Unfortunately, I'm not super versed in human rights, but I suspect @Danoff is.

Your example of breaking into a house I’m struggling to quote due to Mobile Safari issues. But it’s deepy troubling to me that the first port of call is you want them unconscious or ‘preferably’ dead....

It's troubling to me that you think it's perfectly fine for someone to enter your property, without your consent, and you not knowing their intention. Incapacitating someone who is out to cause harm is something I feel very strongly that I should be allowed to do.

It does and it doesn't.
By not knowing why your country does so little to prevent these people from dying, it kinda highlights that it’s not important to you enough to find out. Or is that not a fair assessment?

Do you understand how complex healthcare is? It's not simply flipping a switch to provide better mental healthcare. I don't know all the intricacies of it. So no, it's not exactly at the top of my list of things to know because, well, there are a million other things I need to know as well and I simply don't have the time to dedicate years of study to write a dissertation on the sociology of the US and its mental health care situation.

 

[Exorcet]

And that’s fine, but my argument would be that the cost of people dying as a result of hit and runs, is outweighed by the mobility, economic growth and prosperity cars have brought to the world.

Is the cost of mass shootings out weighed by the enjoyment and personal protection a gun affords you?

This assumes that having guns available makes shooting inevitable though. If that's the not the case, it's a nonsense question. If we assume that having guns leads to mass shootings, then it's a personal question. Yes and no are equally valid answers, just like in the car case.

 

[baldgye]

It's troubling to me that you think it's perfectly fine for someone to enter your property, without your consent, and you not knowing their intention. Incapacitating someone who is out to cause harm is something I feel very strongly that I should be allowed to do.

When did I say that? I have locks on my doors, house insurance and my building (I live in a flat) has security I help pay for. I just don’t think breaking into someone’s house/flat should mean that person should die, I can’t even imagine what it would be like to kill someone. It would be something I would probably struggle to live with.

Do you understand how complex healthcare is? It's not simply flipping a switch to provide better mental healthcare. I don't know all the intricacies of it. So no, it's not exactly at the top of my list of things to know because, well, there are a million other things I need to know as well and I simply don't have the time to dedicate years of study to write a dissertation on the sociology of the US and its mental health care situation.

I have a fairly good understanding of my own and the NHS system in the U.K. My own nations health care isn’t the best in the world but it’s still something I’m very grateful for and have done my best to support.

But as a gun owner, you seem to be of the opinion that reducing guns won’t solve the problem?
If you don’t know what would work and how to do it (roughly), why do you know what wouldn’t work?
It seems to me as though, you don’t care that much about these kinds of things, at least not enough to do much about it? If that’s the case that’s fine, that’s your opinion you are entitled to. I’m just trying to work out why nothing is ever done about a problem that seems so simple (in principle) to solve.

 

[Touring Mars]

Is the cost of mass shootings out weighed by the enjoyment and personal protection a gun affords you?

That will always be a matter of opinion...

The question for me is how to achieve a reduction in violence (and, specifically in relation to mass shootings, as that is what this thread is about as opposed to all gun violence which is covered elsewhere) while respecting the right of self-protection.

It's not merely that the cost is x and the benefit is y, and if x > y then something needs to change. It's a question of addressing why this type of violence is occurring and how it can be minimized, which, in the case of the USA, has to contend with the fact that gun ownership for most people is a right protected by the Constitution.

@Joey D In the context of this thread, my point is that not everyone does have a right to own a gun, irrespective of how one may interpret the Second Amendment. One's rights are not exclusively defined by the Constitution - nor does the Constitution (or, say, the UN Declaration of Human Rights) correctly define what one's rights really are.

Addressing the issue of mass shootings needs a multi-faceted approach, and banning guns is not going to solve the issue of mass killings - but it would help to minimize the speed at which a disturbed individual can kill multiple people if these people didn't have such easy access to the kind of weaponry that enables them to do so.

I'm suggesting that one avenue to address this specific epidemic is to tighten the laws with regards to who can legally own certain types of weapon, and put in place measures to deprive individuals with histories of violent or abusive behaviour of their 'right' to own these weapons. This requires challenging the myth that the Constitution entitles all citizens to possess and bear arms when it does not.

 

[baldgye]

This assumes that having guns available makes shooting inevitable though. If that's the not the case, it's a nonsense question. If we assume that having guns leads to mass shootings, then it's a personal question. Yes and no are equally valid answers, just like in the car case.

No, it assumes that shootings are only viable with guns being present.

That will always be a matter of opinion...

Indeed, which is basically all I’m asking for.

It's not merely that the cost is x and the benefit is y, and if x > y then something needs to change.

Isn’t it? Dunblane(?) was when the scales where tipped here and recently the mass shootings in NZ tipped those scales. Yet Americans do little while hundreds or thousands of people die, so are they just content with how things are?

 

[Exorcet]

No, it assumes that shootings are only viable with guns being present.

This is absolutely true, shootings are only viable with guns being present. Guns being present doesn't make shootings inevitable though. You seem to be implying the opposite, unless I'm not understanding something.

Is the cost of mass shootings out weighed by the enjoyment and personal protection a gun affords you?

If it's possible to own the gun without any cost in mass shootings, how does this question make any sense?

 

[baldgye]

This is absolutely true, shootings are only viable with guns being present. Guns being present doesn't make shootings inevitable though. You seem to be implying the opposite, unless I'm not understanding something.

If it's possible to own the gun without any cost in mass shootings, how does this question make any sense?

Is it possibly for America to have guns without mass shootings?

I’m suggesting that gun owners and pro-gun people rule out guns as the problem. Ok fine, YET their solutions or suggestions for solutions are ignored, or worse actually implemented and don’t work.

 

[Joey D]

When did I say that? I have locks on my doors, house insurance and my building (I live in a flat) has security I help pay for. I just don’t think breaking into someone’s house/flat should mean that person should die, I can’t even imagine what it would be like to kill someone. It would be something I would probably struggle to live with.

If you can't defend your property, family, or yourself what other option is there? You don't need to specifically say it, but your options boil down to fight or flight. I'm going to choose to fight because I have a better chance then if I try to run out the door that the intruder is probably trying to come through.

Yes, I lock my doors, have insurance, and my townhouse complex has security. But guess what? Things still can happen. And really, insurance only comes into play if the intruder is just looking to steal something. If their intent is rape or kidnapping, then no amount of insurance is going to cover that.

And no, I don't ever want to kill anyone and I suspect it would mess me up. But if the choice is their life or my family's then the choice is an easy one to make. If you're coming into my house without my consent I'm assuming you have intent to harm and I will go on the defense.

But as a gun owner, you seem to be of the opinion that reducing guns won’t solve the problem?
If you don’t know what would work and how to do it (roughly), why do you know what wouldn’t work?
It seems to me as though, you don’t care that much about these kinds of things, at least not enough to do much about it? If that’s the case that’s fine, that’s your opinion you are entitled to. I’m just trying to work out why nothing is ever done about a problem that seems so simple (in principle) to solve.

It wouldn't work because the Constitution grants people the right to have a firearm. That's a hefty battle that probably won't be won, if only for the number of legal hoops the government would need to go through.

Also, the US has a track record of failing badly on banned things. We started the war on drugs in the 1980's and nothing has changed since then, and in many ways, it's actually worse. A war on guns would do the same thing.

If you're going to reduce guns, the government would need to essentially come around and force people to give them up. That would not end well. You'd also need to assume the person is going to commit a crime with that weapon, which is also illegal because you can't assume someone to be guilty.

In the context of this thread, my point is that not everyone does have a right to own a gun, irrespective of how one may interpret the Second Amendment. One's rights are not exclusively defined by the Constitution - nor does the Constitution (or, say, the UN Declaration of Human Rights) correctly define what one's rights really are.

American citizen's rights are defined by the Constitution though, that's one of the reasons why it exists.

 

[baldgye]

Ref the chat about the burglar/rapist/murder I’m not sure where really getting anywhere but it is interesting reading your mentally.

It wouldn't work because the Constitution grants people the right to have a firearm. That's a hefty battle that probably won't be won, if only for the number of legal hoops the government would need to go through.

Also, the US has a track record of failing badly on banned things. We started the war on drugs in the 1980's and nothing has changed since then, and in many ways, it's actually worse. A war on guns would do the same thing.

If you're going to reduce guns, the government would need to essentially come around and force people to give them up. That would not end well. You'd also need to assume the person is going to commit a crime with that weapon, which is also illegal because you can't assume someone to be guilty.

Ok, so because nothing (taking your post at face value) can be done, mass shootings are just an acceptable part of being a free American?

 

[Exorcet]

Is it possibly for America to have guns without mass shootings?

I believe so. We just need to keep guns out of the hands of mass shooters. That's the theory. I think the smart gun idea goes a good few steps in the right direction here by making stolen guns, sporting guns, and potentially self defense/hunting guns unsuitable for aggressive action. I don't have an "in gun" answer for a premeditated murder. That's probably best handled by checks at purchase and of course removing the motivations for mass shooting in the first place.

I’m suggesting that gun owners and pro-gun people rule out guns as the problem. Ok fine, YET their solutions or suggestions for solutions are ignored, or worse actually implemented and don’t work.

If an idea doesn't work, then ditch it fine. If it's ignored, that's a different story. That doesn't necessarily mean there is a problem with the proposal.

 

[Touring Mars]

Isn’t it? Dunblane(?) was when the scales where tipped here and recently the mass shootings in NZ tipped those scales. Yet Americans do little while hundreds or thousands of people die, so are they just content with how things are?

Perhaps I should have put that differently... the fact is that the 'benefit' (e.g. the right to self-protection) is effectively non-negotiable... if it were negotiable, it would not be a right. As such, the question becomes how to minimize the costs while respecting rights.

American citizen's rights are defined by the Constitution though, that's one of the reasons why it exists.

But the Constitution cannot bestow certain rights upon those who cannot possibly observe them. It only sets out what one's rights are insofar as they can exist.

It is not the case that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of every and all US citizen to own a gun - it doesn't. If that were the case, the US could have no gun laws as they would have be struck down by the Supreme Court - so clearly it is possible to either deprive certain US citizens of their right to bear arms, or to determine that someone does not possess the right to bear arms, in line with the Constitution. The reason that it's possible to have gun laws that are Constitutional is because of the fact that not all people possess a full set of rights (by virtue of their incapability of observing the rights of others) and hence they are not subject to the Second Amendment statement protecting an individual's right to bear arms because they either never had that right or have forfeited that right.

 

[Novalee]

this clip talks of some the victims gunned down by the rightwing extremist in El Paso
one them was a hispanic retired texas natl . guardsman.




update

now the feds have called the garlic festival a domestic terrorist attack
http://www.ktvu.com/news/ktvu-local...m-investigation-into-gilroy-festival-shooting


also now the fbi has been ordered to take mass shooting threat prevention to a higher priority
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/05/politics/fbi-mass-shooting-threats/index.html

 

[baldgye]

If an idea doesn't work, then ditch it fine. If it's ignored, that's a different story. That doesn't necessarily mean there is a problem with the proposal.

Not saying there is, but all there are, are proposals. A mass shooting happens, things are proposed, nothing or little changes and then another mass shooting happens and the cycle continues.

Which is why the only real conclusion I can draw is that, Americans are just happy and accept mass shootings as just a fact of life.

 

[Joey D]

Ok, so because nothing (taking your post at face value) can be done, mass shootings are just an acceptable part of being a free American?

Acceptable? No.

But the Constitution cannot bestow certain rights upon those who cannot possibly observe them. It only sets out what one's rights are insofar as they can exist.

It is not the case that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of every and all US citizen to own a gun - it doesn't. If that were the case, the US could have no gun laws as they would have be struck down by the Supreme Court - so clearly it is possible to either deprive certain US citizens of their right to bear arms, or to determine that someone does not possess the right to bear arms, in line with the Constitution. The reason that it's possible to have gun laws that are Constitutional is because of the fact that not all people possess a full set of rights (by virtue of their incapability of observing the rights of others) and hence they are not subject to the Second Amendment statement protecting an individual's right to bear arms because they either never had that right or have forfeited that right.

Well, if you want to get technical, no gun law that bars a free citizen from owning a firearm is Constitutional. But the Constitution gets ignored all the time and the Supreme Court is largely made up of puppets that won't defend it like they're supposed to. If they truly upheld the Constitution, Trump's tariffs would've already been struck down.

I will concede there is some interpretation that goes into the Constitution though since there are things that exist now that didn't back in the 1700s. That's why things like background checks for potential firearm owners might not be unconstitutional. Same goes for increased training if you want to get a concealed carry permit. One sort of gray area though is what do you do with felons and I'm sure people have different views on this. To me, if you're a felon you've surrendered your rights because you violated the rights of others. This means you're no longer a "free citizen" of the US. I'm sure others have a different outlook on this though.

 

[baldgye]

Acceptable? No.

But, your not willing to understand why so little is done and then fight for that change to happen?

 

[Exorcet]

Which is why the only real conclusion I can draw is that, Americans are just happy and accept mass shootings as just a fact of life.

I think now I see more the angle you're coming from. I don't look at it from the national picture. I feel that many people want to do things but we're too polarized to come to consensus. A country isn't necessarily a unified entity.

 

[Joey D]

But, your not willing to understand why so little is done and then fight for that change to happen?

I'm not sure what you'd like me to personally do about it. I don't create or write laws, nor do I treat mental illness or have the money to fund a study to look into it. So in the end, I find it unacceptable that it happens but there's nothing I can do about it.

 

[baldgye]

I think now I see more the angle you're coming from. I don't look at it from the national picture. I feel that many people want to do things but we're too polarized to come to consensus. A country isn't necessarily a unified entity.

Thus, it’s just an accepted fact of American life.

I'm not sure what you'd like me to personally do about it. I don't create or write laws, nor do I treat mental illness or have the money to fund a study to look into it. So in the end, I find it unacceptable that it happens but there's nothing I can do about it.

I mean, I don’t want you to do anything you don’t want to do. I’m trying to understand your country and mentality.

To me it seems so alien that so many people seem ok with the status quo.
As a democratic nation, there is plenty you can do to support movements you feel would help prevent mass shootings. That is, if you care, if you don’t and you’ve got bigger things going on, like I said that’s fine. But then why is it so hard for people to just say “hey these things are bad, but it’s just a sad fact of life” rather than pretend video games, movies or mental health are the issue?

Because if it where me, I would be trying to figure out what the best understood causes where, and voting for people to make those happen and/or donating to causes that would help fight for those things to happen.

 

[Exorcet]

Thus, it’s just an accepted fact of American life.

I don't see the same conclusion. If it was an accepted fact, no one would care. No one would have opinions or want to do anything.

 

[baldgye]

I don't see the same conclusion. If it was an accepted fact, no one would care. No one would have opinions or want to do anything.

Do people actually want to do anything?

 

[Exorcet]

Do people actually want to do anything?

Yes, that's a different matter from getting something done though.

 

[Dotini]

Do people actually want to do anything?

Yes, I'd like to give all willing males 40 acres and a mule.

 

[baldgye]

Yes, that's a different matter from getting something done though.

Indeed, which is kinda my point.

Mass shootings are usually so shocking and upsetting that they in of themselves force massive social and legal change. Yet America seems immune to this ‘shock’. I wonder if that’s just because Americans accept this as part-in-parcel of ‘free American life’.

 

[Exorcet]

Indeed, which is kinda my point.

Mass shootings are usually so shocking and upsetting that they in of themselves force massive social and legal change. Yet America seems immune to this ‘shock’. I wonder if that’s just because Americans accept this as part-in-parcel of ‘free American life’.

If you want to look at the country as one entity maybe. I feel that that is fundamentally inaccurate in all cases though, and why I try to look on a more individual level. Outside of the US more of the people wanting change wanted the same thing. Inside the US people want different things. I can't pull any information on what is deemed acceptable out of that.

 

[baldgye]

If you want to look at the country as one entity maybe. I feel that that is fundamentally inaccurate in all cases though, and why I try to look on a more individual level. Outside of the US more of the people wanting change wanted the same thing. Inside the US people want different things. I can't pull any information on what is deemed acceptable out of that.

I don’t understand what your saying. America is a single entity. America has more mass shootings than any other first world nation. America also has one of, if not the most well equipped and powerful military forces in the world. It openly touted as the worlds greatest democracy and we’re told the President is the ‘Leader of the Free World’.

Yet, when it comes to mass shootings across the whole nation, the only way to assess them is individually and then, to do nothing; because lots of people have different opinions and no single person can enact change?
(Sorry I’m combining several of the above posts).


Seems like you’re just trying to excuse away mass shootings and a lack of action to combat them?

Like to go back to your gun-ID solution, what have you done to further this concept? Have you researched the costs or supported people who also feel this proposal is valid?
Again, if this isn’t an issue you feel that strongly about, that’s fine.

 

[Dotini]

Mass shootings are usually so shocking and upsetting that they in of themselves force massive social and legal change. Yet America seems immune to this ‘shock’. I wonder if that’s just because Americans accept this as part-in-parcel of ‘free American life’.

Yes, except it's much more than "free life", whatever that is. We willingly if not gladly accept this as part and parcel of the social engineering experiments we have been performing upon ourselves since the 1960's. We are where we are. MASSIVE social wheels have been set in motion. There is no stopping them. Thy outcome is unknown.

 

[Touring Mars]

Well, if you want to get technical, no gun law that bars a free citizen from owning a firearm is Constitutional. But the Constitution gets ignored all the time and the Supreme Court is largely made up of puppets that won't defend it like they're supposed to. If they truly upheld the Constitution, Trump's tariffs would've already been struck down.

I will concede there is some interpretation that goes into the Constitution though since there are things that exist now that didn't back in the 1700s. That's why things like background checks for potential firearm owners might not be unconstitutional. Same goes for increased training if you want to get a concealed carry permit. One sort of gray area though is what do you do with felons and I'm sure people have different views on this. To me, if you're a felon you've surrendered your rights because you violated the rights of others. This means you're no longer a "free citizen" of the US. I'm sure others have a different outlook on this though.

Indeed, there is great, legal debate about what the exact meaning of the Second Amendment text is. But my point is perhaps a bit more basic than that.

Rights are reciprocal, and therefore they cannot be arbitrarily ascribed, even by law. One's right to self-defense (or, by extension, to own a gun) derives from one's own ability to observe the rights of others. Hence if, for whatever reason, you cannot observe the rights of others, you cannot possess those rights yourself (similarly, if you choose not to observe the rights of others, your rights can be taken away).

One cannot be born possessing a right to own a gun because infants are not capable of observing the rights of others. That the law (i.e. the Constitution) appears to enshrine that right does not change the fact that a baby cannot and does not possess of a full set of human rights. Similarly, some mentally ill people cannot possess the right to own firearms for the same reason.

Believing that the law can bestow specific rights upon people who are incapable of possessing those specific rights is one of the reasons why there is so much controversy regarding the Second Amendment.

 

[Exorcet]

I don’t understand what your saying. America is a single entity. America has more mass shootings than any other first world nation. America also has one of, if not the most well equipped and powerful military forces in the world. It openly touted as the worlds greatest democracy and we’re told the President is the ‘Leader of the Free World’.

Yet, when it comes to mass shootings across the whole nation, the only way to assess them is individually and then, to do nothing; because lots of people have different opinions and no single person can enact change?
(Sorry I’m combining several of the above posts).

The US can be thought of as a single entity for the sake of practicality, but that's not what it is. The same goes for any country. Usually when there is consensus on something, someone will use a phrase like "we have decided" and ignore all the dissenting voicing because they are outnumbered enough to not really be heard. I guess it's not right or wrong, but to some degree inaccurate.

Bringing this back to guns, the US requires (or it supposed to require) a certain amount of consensus to pass a law. We don't have that right now and we can't enact national change until we have that consensus. National change is not the only option however, so this isn't necessarily a dead end, but you've been focusing on the country as a whole.

Seems like you’re just trying to excuse away mass shootings and a lack of action to combat them?

I'm just trying to answer your question, though I'm not sure if I'm doing any good as I might not even understand the question the same way that you do. You also seem to want an answer that encompasses the entire US, which I am 1/350,000,000 of at best.

Like to go back to your gun-ID solution, what have you done to further this concept? Have you researched the costs or supported people who also feel this proposal is valid?
Again, if this isn’t an issue you feel that strongly about, that’s fine.

The short answer is that I've been thinking over the idea but have yet to take any significant steps to advancing it, though I'm looking for opportunities to do so.

Mostly I have been thinking about the situations where you would want to inhibit the functionality of firearms, and I think this is at an OK place at the conceptual level now. This has left me wondering how to actually get greater support for the idea. Obviously there is mentioning it to others, but that's not likely to get me anywhere quickly. I have thought about trying to contact the NRA to see if somehow I could get them on board with the idea, but I admittedly never attempted this. Partially it's because the NRA as an organization is something that I've never liked and having started doing some research into the history of the smart gun concept I may have been right in not seeking to discuss it with them:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/feat...esn-t-exist-because-of-new-jersey-and-the-nra

They've apparently tried to kill the concept. I disagree with the New Jersey law that they were fighting, but trying to kill smart guns as a response makes them seem extremely short sighted and selfish. On the other hand the same article highlights why I'm hesitant to go through the government. Forcing everyone to switch to the technology is a horrible idea when there is any doubt about reliability. You can't have your self defense weapon just decide to not work when you're actually counting on it. That said I support less extreme adaptations of the technology if anyone running for office were to propose such things. Primarily when it comes to voting though my focus is more on breaking the 2 party system and strengthening government checks and balances than guns in particular.

 

[Danoff]

Addressing the issue of mass shootings needs a multi-faceted approach, and banning guns is not going to solve the issue of mass killings - but it would help to minimize the speed at which a disturbed individual can kill multiple people if these people didn't have such easy access to the kind of weaponry that enables them to do so.

Banning guns doesn't eliminate the kind of weaponry that enables them to do so. It more effectively minimizes the kind of weaponry that can be used to stop them. I've mentioned before, the body count would have been lower at Oklahoma City if we could have given McVeigh an automatic rifle instead of his weapon of choice.

@Joey D In the context of this thread, my point is that not everyone does have a right to own a gun, irrespective of how one may interpret the Second Amendment. One's rights are not exclusively defined by the Constitution - nor does the Constitution (or, say, the UN Declaration of Human Rights) correctly define what one's rights really are.

I'm suggesting that one avenue to address this specific epidemic is to tighten the laws with regards to who can legally own certain types of weapon, and put in place measures to deprive individuals with histories of violent or abusive behaviour of their 'right' to own these weapons. This requires challenging the myth that the Constitution entitles all citizens to possess and bear arms when it does not.

Rights are reciprocal, and therefore they cannot be arbitrarily ascribed, even by law. One's right to self-defense (or, by extension, to own a gun) derives from one's own ability to observe the rights of others. Hence if, for whatever reason, you cannot observe the rights of others, you cannot possess those rights yourself (similarly, if you choose not to observe the rights of others, your rights can be taken away).

One cannot be born possessing a right to own a gun because infants are not capable of observing the rights of others. That the law (i.e. the Constitution) appears to enshrine that right does not change the fact that a baby cannot and does not possess of a full set of human rights. Similarly, some mentally ill people cannot possess the right to own firearms for the same reason.

Believing that the law can bestow specific rights upon people who are incapable of possessing those specific rights is one of the reasons why there is so much controversy regarding the Second Amendment.

That's correct. Not just from a constitutional perspective, but also from a philosophical perspective. Although I'd pick at your chosen language in a few places, I agree with the point you're making. You only have rights if you can observe the rights of others. And you can only take an action and maintain your rights if that action is consistent with the rights of others. If you demonstrate (through a wide variety of methods, including pure physiological examination) that you do not have the capacity to observe the rights of others, you do not have all of your rights.

So you're correct that these mass murderers do not have the right to bear arms. Furthermore, if it could have been shown ahead of time that they were incapable of observing the rights of others (to a high degree certainty), then they did not have it in the first place. The problem with acting on this is one of knowledge. When do you know that they are not capable of observing the rights of others.

This is why I'm not opposed to licensing.

@Joey D