General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo if gun control isn't the answer, what is the answer?
Obviously, the gun laws we currently have aren't doing anything to stop the gun slaughter.
Do we just live with the increasing violence and barricade ourselves in our homes?
So much for the concept of a civilized society. We seem to be moving backward toward chaos.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
TBF
(36,363 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)eom
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I'd reach for a shotgun against an intruder, or a rifle against local wildlife (feral pigs, etc.)
A handgun is next to useless in those situations.
More people get killed with their own handguns than get saved by them, however knowledgeable hunter and long gun owners don't seem to have that problem, nor do they seem to get their homes broken into.
If you need to carry a gun on your person at all times, you are either law enforcement -understandable -, are somewhere you shouldn't be, doing something you shouldn't do, or some combination of the two.
Banning long guns is a losing proposition because it affects hunters, and those that live in rural areas.
Last I checked, though, the number of people that want to ban long guns is close to zero. Handguns are where the problem starts.
applegrove
(131,665 posts)they want.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)to appease those who say do nothing or little because it will cost us votes, is killing people.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Or were you assuming you were just going to rule by diktat?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)You'll use "votes" or whatever it takes to protect them. That DIRECTLY contributes to these tragedies. And you don't even care.
randys1
(16,286 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)
SharonAnn
(14,165 posts)What are we teaching our young men? Why do they feel entitled to inflict violence?
leftyladyfrommo
(19,970 posts)and they all seem to have the same dead looking eyes.
What is going on with these guys?
Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)Having spent a fair amount of time on 4chan, I think this shooting clearly emphasizes a symptom of a much larger, more complicated issue than just "Guns." This guy was cold, jaded, bitter and wanted people to share in his pain. Likewise, the complete lack of opposition to the threat of mass violence by his peers (and the lack of caring even afterwards) should be taken as a warning sign; People, especially the younger generation, are just flat -pissed-.
They were told when they were young that they could be anything, do anything, that they could do anything they wanted so long as they devoted themselves and put their minds to it. Now, later in life, they have the perception that they were lied to; that life is futile, no one owes anything and none of it really matters in the end. In short, we have a generation of sociopaths who just don't give a shit about the well-being of others, and those same people have large, online support nets for those who share the same feelings and ideas.
This guy was close to the edge (if not already over said edge), made his intentions known in a public forum, and people -cheered- him. They encouraged him and rooted for him, because "Fuck everything".
This shouldn't be about "gunz"; if you want to "Discuss", let's talk about the society that not only allowed this to happen but encouraged it to; the people who, when faced with the threat of a mass murder, reacted with an uncaring "Do it, faggot" (A direct quote.)
There's far more important issues with this than just "hurr guns", and I think you know that as well. Do you have any solutions or even thoughts in regards to what the hell went wrong with this poor guy?
(The last bit was meant for another poster, not you, SharonAnn. Still, I think that the points I bring up are relevant to your questions.)
leftyladyfrommo
(19,970 posts)Most of these guys wrap themselves up in some kind of hate group. Sometimes its race, one guy hated women, some are white supremacists. But this sickness goes way deeper than their hate groups. These guys are just plain dead inside.
They all manage to find someplace where innocent people make easy targets - college campuses, churches. Places where people won't fight back - or shoot back.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)by telling them the are all special little snowflakes destined for great things. And that seems to be a core element of parenting these days. These kids meet the real world and find out they are just Ordinary Joes and rage derived from a bogus sense of entitlement and self-worth kicks in. Some people respond by taking their rage out on the world, and gunz are the most effective and destructive way to do it.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)oh you don't want us to think about that.
Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)You can't just slap legislation from one country onto another, or hypothetically superimpose the same legislation, and expect the same results without considering historic and cultural differences. We are a country forged in war and conflict, a country whose civilian population identify themselves by how unique and different they can be (as opposed to, say, Japan, where individualism is less sacred). We have something fairly unique in America as a country; The belief that -everyone- is special, -everyone- can make a difference and to infringe on that collective, nationwide right is a cardinal sin. America is an animal wholly different from start to finish than almost any other nation in existence. Individualism and self-determination is a foundation of our country that is imbued in its citizens from birth to death.
In short, these sort of things happen in America precisely because that is how we have succeeded as a collective nation.
Also, please reel in the snark. This is a very real issue that we as a country face without having to dickpiddle back and forth over scoring political points.
enough
(13,731 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Last edited Thu Oct 1, 2015, 10:25 PM - Edit history (1)
Cause they just won't work everywhere. 
Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)Try putting a stop sign on the Autobahn or enacting universal healthcare in the Congo. Some things just aren't feasible without a massive cultural and societal change. C'mon Creek, I've lurked long enough to know you're not a binary thinker by any stretch. Why are you making an exception here?
TBF
(36,363 posts)and everyone else - not to mention what our actions are doing to the planet.
You make a good argument that America is different. It sure is. A war-mongering nation that uses it's military to prop up an inherently unequal economic system to the benefit of just a few (on the backs of everyone else). You are 100% correct in that assessment. The question is why in the heck anyone would want to be part of that.
" ... how we have succeeded as a collective nation." --> My challenge to you is to think about who exactly has succeeded in this environment. And how do we define "success"? I'm sure this is the part where you start pontificating about "freedom" but I would make the argument that we really don't have much of that either. I guess we have the freedom to carry around our weapons and shoot someone a la George Zimmerman style if we don't like the color of their skin, but is that really desirable? We have "freedom" to find a job for ourselves - amongst the pickings that are left after the capitalists have decided to send many of those overseas. We can pollute at will, with our military backing up the actions of our largest corporations, but is it really desirable to kill the planet we actually live on?
Think about what you're actually romanticizing in a critical way. Maybe this "individualism" isn't so amazing after all.
Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)I think you're conflating my answer about success as a nation with endorsement of said success. I'm a humanist before all else; I believe in the inherent goodness and strength of humankind as a species when united with singular drive and determination, individualism be damned. You'll get no "pontificating" from me about freedom, I assure you of that.
In relation to the rest of the content of your post, I mentioned that we have succeeded as a -collective- nation. I mean that as a conglomerate of individuals, with the success of the nation we are a part of holding the success. The individual doesn't matter. The George Zimmermans, the Treyvon Martins, the jobless (to a certain extent), the armed CCW people... They're all irrelevant to the proper success of a country at the macro level.
I'm not romanticising individualism, mate. Individualism is a cancer that will persist so long as we keep allowing it to. I'd elaborate more, but I'd ask you to consider what I've said very carefully prior to asking me to elaborate. That isn't a path many people are fond of discussing.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Last edited Fri Oct 2, 2015, 06:05 AM - Edit history (1)
it shouldn't be nearly so easy for this bitter, nihilistic generation to get their hands on guns?
Why shouldn't it ALSO be about allowing any idiot who feels they've been cheated and lied to to easily get their hands on weapons of mass destruction?
Instead of 30 injured, 13 killed or whatever, we might be looking at 2-3 injured, one killed if he had some less lethal weaponry?
(ETA Later reports cut the numbers down to 10 dead, 7 injured.)
Straw Man
(6,942 posts)Instead of 30 injured, 13 killed or whatever, we might be looking at 2-3 injured, one killed if he had some less lethal weaponry?
Or many more dead and injured if he had somehow managed to get his hands on a couple of gallons of gasoline.
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/26/nyregion/fire-bronx-87-die-blaze-illegal-club-police-arrest-ejected-patron-worst-new-york.html?pagewanted=all
Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)Imagine a chlorine bomb in a school auditorium.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-19-hospitalized-thousands-evacuated-in-gas-leak-at-rosemont-hotel-20141207-story.html
CTyankee
(68,079 posts)This is why I trashed the Gungeon and put most of its biggest fans on Ignore. Wonderful DU tools. I just hate to see it regurgitated in GD...
Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)See, this is my problem with the gun control side. It isn't about health or safety, it isn't about helping people who need it, it's not about preventing rampages; all that matters is an inanimate object.
CT, I remember that this issue is close to you on a personal level so I can sympathize (if not empathize with) your views. There's no need to be as hostile as you are to an open discussion in the wake of a tragedy.
CTyankee
(68,079 posts)Just because I point out what should be obvious to all, it doesn't mean I can't empathize with the need to help people with mental disorders. I can hold two beliefs at the same time.One doesn't contradict the other.
Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)Gun violence and senseless slaughters like this one are not caused by "guns". Guns, and by extension violence -with- guns, stems from an illness of society that isn't limited to guns or gun violence. I'm not talking simple "mental disorders" but an entitlement mentality that stretches deeply into the psyche of the American populace.
How do you "treat" someone with a genuine belief that human life isn't worth much? How can you medicate away a sincere thought that some people -deserve- to die? That isn't just a brain misfire, it is a product of a culture or society that minimizes all human life on a fundamental level. Even if (though?) the poster on 4chan wasn't the shooter, look at the responses; there are people coaching him, encouraging him, hoping that he kills as many people as he possibly can, daring him to do it simply to watch the chaos unfold.
That isn't a problem with "Guns" CT, and even if you banned every gun in the nation (or even the world), that mindset is -far- more dangerous than any inanimate object.
You're right that your two beliefs don't contradict each other, but one does supersede the other; Treat the reasons people go on rampages, you stop the rampages. Ban guns and rampages will continue, just on a smaller scale. One of those -ends- the rampages, one of those only puts a damper on them. That is the point I'm trying to make and what I work towards off this forum. It's also why I can almost never side with the Gun Control side of things; their scope is so limited, so narrow and so nebulously defined that it's impossible to take them seriously. If they actually cared about helping people, they'd -help people- instead of just trying to deny things to wide swaths of a civilian populace.
We're on the same side here CT, we're just quibbling on the details.
CTyankee
(68,079 posts)and have any interest...
Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)CTyankee
(68,079 posts)
OneGrassRoot
(23,943 posts)Seriously, I appreciate your comments in this thread. So much so that I peeked into the infamous Gungeon for the first time.
Like most of our societal issues and challenges, the causes are multifactorial and complex. Yet I'm with you on the point you're trying to make.
Well, I think I am anyway. I feel our society's values are well and truly fucked, and it's most evident in the caustic, dehumanizing culture so evident now -- evident for those of us paying attention.
Nice to "meet" you.
Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)Not out of lack of trying, but for the most part we're all out enjoying life; few of us post there often, except to mess with SecMo from time to time.
That said, you won't find a better source for -anything- firearm related. Between the regulars there, we have an aggregate knowledge of firearms, their capabilities, effective regulations and current legislation that surpasses even Wikipedia. :p Just be aware that we're a mite skittish, given that we have targets on our back (perhaps ironically) from most of the DU member base. Any regular there will almost automatically assume you're in the group to stir up trouble.
But still, if you learn even one thing from dipping into our lil' slice o' D.U., it's a righteous venture. 
Back to point, yes, you're entirely correct on most of the points you've stated. It's just a shame that it's like pulling teeth to get people to acknowledge that maybe the problem isn't solely guns but a society that instills its young folks with such destructive tendencies. (The only nit I'd pick is Dehumanizing, simply because you have to assume humans have value to -be- dehumanized, something I think is a genuine problem in both America and the world ATM.)
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)You seem to be lacking the KJS* gene that so many on DU seem to be afflicted with.
*Knee Jerk Syndrome
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Guns surely make this type of thing much too easy and convenient, but we seem unique in our desire for mass-murder.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)... And implementing policy on millions to catch dozens is doomed to failure.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)
MisterP
(23,730 posts)
longship
(40,416 posts)
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)Which was precisely why I made my post.
Of course, it was , as I indicated.
(Not for you, my good friend Warren, but for others. I'll take your response in the same light.)
I can hardly wait for the official NRA response. NOT!
My best to you.
Hayduke Bomgarte
(1,965 posts)Every handgun and assault rifle could be confiscated and destroyed, even/especially from the police and hunting rifles and shotguns would be tightly regulated and monitored.
brush
(61,033 posts)It's "radical thinking" to many but banning handguns and assault rifles, whose sole purpose is TOO SHOOT PEOPLE, makes sense. IMO we should do it YESTERDAY.
As far as shotguns and rifles, they should be regulated/registered and insurance required of their owners just as we do with automobiles. I mean, in the present climate with mass shootings coming 4 and 5 and 6 times a month all over the country, who can sensibly argue against the regulation and registering of weapons that can kill to keep them out of the hands of unstable and/or racist individuals.
For home protection a shotgun or rifle will do the job. As for target shooters, pellet guns can suffice as we wean ourselves off of deadly handguns designed strictly to just kill people.
It's a no-brainer. I mean these shooting are coming so often now we are all taking our chances just to go to the mall, the movies, drive on the freeway, go to church, to school, to the job — I mean come on America, we can do much better.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)We are currently averaging 64 days between mass shootings. Prior to 2011, we were averaging 200 days. They are happening 3x more often then they used to.
Source: mother jones
brush
(61,033 posts)and it show that we are averaging even more — several per month.
They must have included all gun murders and not just the highly publicize mass shootings.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)There is no universal agreement on it.
brush
(61,033 posts)whether it's 4, 5 6, 10 or 12 killed and who knows how many injured.
What I'm interested in is doing something to stop them.
Are you?
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)In essence all I was saying is that the calendar you saw may have had more entries than what I posted because the two different sources were using two different methods. That's all.
brush
(61,033 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Federal definition of “mass killing”—defined as “three or more” killed. Shooter not included in this number regardless of his fate.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Like we have for cars.
hack89
(39,181 posts)what is insurance suppose to achieve?
longship
(40,416 posts)I would support both.
hack89
(39,181 posts)so I would not view registration as some magic bullet.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)100% effective, or begin working immediately. A 10% reduction by 2025 is better than doing nothing, which most gunners favor.
hack89
(39,181 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)How exactly has doing nothing so far stopped it?
hack89
(39,181 posts)We have cut our murder rate in half.
Didn't say stop it. I said it would go down.
longship
(40,416 posts)Not that they were either practical or possible.
hack89
(39,181 posts)brush
(61,033 posts)Legislation should be passed that all gun owners register their guns and get insurance or sell or surrender them.
After a reasonable grace period, if they are subsequently caught in possession of an unregistered/uninsured weapon, there will be substantial legal consequences.
This is a workable, reasonable solution that could actually increase revenue for strapped local/state governments and provide jobs. Let's get it done.
hack89
(39,181 posts)Certainly defies American political, cultural and legal realities.
brush
(61,033 posts)after the grace period if you are caught with an unregistered, uninsured gun you face the legal consequences, just as if you are caught driving a vehicle without a license or insurance or registration.
I know you don't want to hear that but it's not hard at all.
And there's nothing politically, culturally or legally un-American about it, unless you think driver's licenses, vehicle insurance and vehicle registration are un-American.
hack89
(39,181 posts)or even getting widespread public support. Lots of things will work if you ignore what it actually takes to make them law.
brush
(61,033 posts)to stop the mass killings. Let's just keep having Sandy Hooks and Auroras and Tucsons and Santa Barbaras and Charlestons and Columbines and Oregons over and over because you're afraid of not having public support?
I think you are dead wrong. IMO public support would be overwhelmingly in favor of registering and insuring guns.
Speak up DU. How do you all feel about this.
hack89
(39,181 posts)lets not forget that Adam Lanza's gun was registered.
Registration is irrelevant to mass shootings.
Registration is irrelevant to suicides (which make up two thirds of gun deaths)
Registration is irrelevant to criminals (by law they cannot be forced to register their guns)
Registration has absolutely no deterrent effect - crazy people don't care. Suicidal people don't care. Criminals don't care.
brush
(61,033 posts)Or are you opposed to do anything at all?
IMO, registration and insurance would be a start. Some sort of psychological testing for suitability to own a gun can be created by mental health professionals.
All this needs to be discussed, ideas need to be exchanged so we can get on with doing something to create a workable solution to stop these killings.
Please get on board and stop with the roadblocks you keep throwing up.
What are your ideas?
hack89
(39,181 posts)I do not support registration or an AWB. I strongly support UBCs, licensing and mandatory training. I support laws that temporarily remove guns from people with domestic violence charges. There is a lot we can do.
brush
(61,033 posts)What is an AWB.
I'm with you on background checks, licensing and training.
Why not registration though?
hack89
(39,181 posts)I just gave you my reasons for opposing registration. I will also point out that the ACLU opposes registration on privacy grounds.
brush
(61,033 posts)There has to be some way that links the gun to it's owner.
If the owner is law abiding, I don't get the reluctance to do this. If the gun is stolen the owner, because he/she is on record will immediately alert the authorities that it was stolen.
What's wrong with that?
hack89
(39,181 posts)I have insurance to cover loss and real accidents. But if I decide to kill someone it will not stop me. And my insurance company will not pay my victim's family because it does not cover crimes.
brush
(61,033 posts)checks and psychological testing as the insurance companies would demand it.
That would make getting a gun harder, much harder than it is now, which seems to be desperately needed as we are awash with them and the mass shootings.
The huge backlog of uninsured and/or unregistered guns would eventually, over time, be whittled down as criminals and others are caught with them — this of course only works if we immediately start requiring insurance and/or registration on new gun purchases.
It has to start somewhere.
hack89
(39,181 posts)I will point out that when you buy a house insurance companies will ask about swimming pools and the type of dog you own. They do not ask about guns. Because they understand how rare gun violence is relative to the number of gun owners. The insurance companies will not ask for better background checks. They will limit their liability by not covering crimes and rake in the dough from low risk gun owners.
brush
(61,033 posts)requirement.
If we are serious as a nation and have the national will to put a stop to these mass killings we will do some of the things we discussed.
I know you don't agree with me on nsurance an/or registration but I appreciate your input on testing and background tests.
I think we can both agree that we need to get going on some or all of the things we discussed tonight.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)the
randys1
(16,286 posts)hack89
(39,181 posts)I have been a competitive target shooter for decades - AR-15s are the most common rifle used in the sport. That is one reason.
The other is that AWBs are security theater. Semi-automatic rifles are the weapon least likely to be used to to kill someone. My standard is simple - if it won't stop a Va Tech shooting (the largest school shooting in America) then it doesn't really solve a problem. "Assault Weapons" are an easy target because they look all black and scary. Yet they kill a small fraction of what handguns do. For that matter, they kill far less than knives and blunt objects.
randys1
(16,286 posts)hack89
(39,181 posts)I want guns.
randys1
(16,286 posts)whether or not the risk is worth it.
hack89
(39,181 posts)when you think you can decide what is best for me is when I start pushing back.
randys1
(16,286 posts)hack89
(39,181 posts)I don't feel the need to surrender any of them to placate other peoples fears.
I support gun control. I reject AWBs and registration as security theater. Why are you focusing on the differences between us instead of the many things we agree on?
randys1
(16,286 posts)hack89
(39,181 posts)you are amazed simply because you have no sense of proportion on the issue.
randys1
(16,286 posts)and the one thing is not designed to kill people or animals
guns have two purposes, target practice and killing
hack89
(39,181 posts)that is off the top of my head.
randys1
(16,286 posts)If my PS3 killed as many people as your guns, I would give it up
hack89
(39,181 posts)I have owned and used guns for over 30 years and have never used them to kill a living things. So it would appear that killing is not the sole purpose of guns. Considering 99.9% of all gun owners will also never kill someone, it would appear your logic is somewhat flawed.
randys1
(16,286 posts)hack89
(39,181 posts)it would be awkward for you to defend things that kill more people than semiautomatic rifles. People might think you have an agenda or something.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Precisely zero.
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)Ok. Say tell you to stop drinking alcohol (causes a comparable number of deaths to guns). Will you stop?
randys1
(16,286 posts)You cant win this debate.
Guns have no use other than to kill.
UNLESS you are saying your desire to PLAY with your gun outweighs the lives lost?
Thus my point for years now.
branford
(4,462 posts)You wish to ban all guns.
We live in a free country. The fact that someone may not "need" something is not justification for banning it, regardless if the products are firearms or anything else. This basic axiom is usually quite strongly defended by liberals, with firearms the notable and emotive exception. The fact that firearms are explicitly protected by the Second Amendment and its state analogs makes your question all the more absurd.
In any event, firearms are used lawfully for self-defense, hunting and sport hundreds of millions of times each year. That is "need" enough.
I believe that even you would agree that lawfully protecting one's life is certainly a legitimate use of firearms.
For your reference, according to the CDC under President Obama,
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence:
http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1#ix
branford
(4,462 posts)Why is taking away a entire class of some of the most popular and reliable firearms owned by tens of millions of law-abiding Americans, who statistically are no danger to anyone, so important to you?
If you wish to ban or severely restrict something, it is you who should offer the hard data as to its necessity and evidence that a ban is necessary to accomplish a recognized legal goal. The fact that firearms are a constitutionally-protected product only raises the bar. I would also not that goals such as eliminating things like "gun culture" do not even come close to passing Constitutional muster.
When the U.S. Department of Justice (through the National Institute of Justice, my old employer) cannot even attest to the effectiveness of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, I believe you will find such a task exceptionally difficult, if not impossible.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf
underpants
(196,004 posts)and you use a gun in a suspected crime then it would be clear that you didn't follow the law.
There are still a lot of cars without or with lapsed insurance. Here in Virginia, and other states, car insurance was required. That changed 15-20 years ago. You can pay a fee when registering your car and you don't have to show proof of insurance. You are responsible for all damages but you don't carry insurance.
Okay so apply it to guns. Either have insurance or, if you use the gun and don't have it, you pay a price.
hack89
(39,181 posts)I know from experience. Let's not forget that insurance companies only insure real accidents and not criminal acts.
How long do you think it would take the NRA to do an AARP and get into the insurance business? They would make a fortune. And imagine what would happen if they tied large discounts to NRA membership.
Not sure that insurance would have the result you desire.
underpants
(196,004 posts)Cost doesn't matter. Do you have insurance or not? Make it cheap but you have to have it. The gun lobby can't even protect, as ridiculous as it sounds, within private providers like HIPAA.
There is insurance coverage for many criminal acts:
Protecting against product tampering
"brand" insurance
Insurance against negligible homicide
Car insurance covers criminal acts - mostly to lower claims
Every pro sports contract is underwritten to contend for criminal acts by the employee (the player)
Re-insurance is partly based on the issuer protecting themselves against criminal acts of the initial policy holder
Etc.
hack89
(39,181 posts)They are not stupid.
underpants
(196,004 posts)Yes, that is the problem
Actually insurance companies will expose themselves to anything you are willing to pay for. The underwrite including re-insuring. Katrina had $40 Billion in claims and not one insurance company went out of business ....or lost money.
hack89
(39,181 posts)Will you give me the option to decide what I am willing to pay for?
Waldorf
(654 posts)The insurance would be voided if you committed a criminal act with the firearm.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)Who do you think would get a payout and from whom?
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)The idea is that, after a few more of these, the premiums would go through the roof, thereby causing gun ownership to plummet.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)Only against one...
Waldorf
(654 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Is going to insure or pay out on a criminal act. Ever. Just like life insurance policies don't cover suicides. Insurance covers accidents, not intentional acts. And what you propose sounds a lot like a tax designed to impede a constitutionally protected right
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)and yet there are tolls, airline taxes, etc., all over the place.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)The right of travel means not having the government stop you from packing up and moving to another state-- "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them." e.g. if there were an exit tax to move out of New Jersey, that'd be an infringement on your right of travel.
The right to a free press doesn't mean that the government has to give you a bullhorn, a printing press, or a website.
It's free as in freedom, not free as in beer.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,961 posts)And some insurances are no-fault. So Workers Compensation, for example, pays the medical expenses of the worker even if that worker was doing something willfully idiotic.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)rights for women. Have to wait and see on the latter.
The short response is if you float a law with the intent to circumvent a constitutional right (can we say poll tax?), then they will strike down that law. You have willingly telegraphed the intent of the law, as have others who try to wiggle in Christian bible reading in schools by floating a law on Bible study courses, moments of silence, and the like. It won't work because the courts will see "the idea."
underpants
(196,004 posts)I've never heard that point before.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)gun control has worked to drastically reduce the incidence.
Response to leftyladyfrommo (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
leftyladyfrommo
(19,970 posts)Response to leftyladyfrommo (Reply #17)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)the obvious and demonstrably effective way to drastically reduce gun massacres?
Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #72)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #120)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Too bad gunzercentral doesn't do their research and blindsides you all with readily falsifiable bullshit.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)
shenmue
(38,595 posts)
walkingman
(10,700 posts)with one side pushing for gun control and the other pushing for arming everyone. Meantime more will die.
Eliminate handguns for the general public, semi-automatic and automatic weapons, long waiting period with extreme background check. The law has to be changed - when something is not working you change the law.
Simple and very tragic in the USA.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)already in circulation?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Yes, it will take a while for most of them to be off the streets, and more folks will die unnecessarily, but as long as the supply isn't being replaced, eventually you'll work down to the point where guns are almost never being used in crimes.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)Well, except for hunting violations. I know that in Minnesota the DNR auctions guns seized from poachers.
While your idea is admirable, I don't think it will reduce crime to any significant extent.
There are just too many guns for your idea to work.
I believe that if a universal background check bill were introduced into congress next year, there might be a reasonable chance for it to pass.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)and the American public are 75% against it,
jwirr
(39,215 posts)from this time is true the deputy is correct. Another article on DU said that the shooter got them out of an unlocked police car. I suspect that the police department already has a law against that.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Genie left that bottle ages ago, I have no idea how to fix the gun culture.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)will make that 400 million. It's an asinine justificationn for doing nothing.
Rex
(65,616 posts)It's not like we need any more or that the remaining 300 million are hard to come by.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Firearms are legal in this country and legal to manufacture and sell, much as you want to stop production, it simply isn't going to happen.
underpants
(196,004 posts)Basically the NRA (with some side groups) has weakened gun regulations, stopped them from being implemented in the first place, and made enforcement of existing laws a minefield. The Fast and Furious hoax illustrated that enforcement efforts have to be administered by the legal element because they are scared of one misstep or PR nonsense from the pro-gun forces.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,942 posts)if states would stop passing more and more laws that expand the number and types of places guns should be allowed. Why somebody needs a gun to go to Church or to a crowded sports stadium is beyond me. Seems to me like "because RKBA" seems to the only justification anybody should want or need to take a gun anywhere to some people. We don't live in a war-torn country where our lives actually do depend on being armed at all times but some people sure seem to act like it (and maybe wouldn't even mind if it was like that- so that they can live out their fantasy of blowing a "bad guy" away and becoming a public hero).
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)to bludgeon and punish gun controllers for their efforts to control and prohibit. The gun control outlook has little grass roots support, and has to rely on a couple of billionaire donors and a few foundations to keep the lights on. But it does have near agitprop hegemony in the old MSM, which has pushed the same gun control line, the same cartoons, the same stand-up routines for decades; in short, it is a culture war, and the controllers are on the losing side. Given the political miss-match and the animosity, those advocating for the Second are pounding away like the Hulk, and they are unlikely to let up.
No doubt you know my basic views on the Second Amendment, I only post this to seriously explain why the expansion of venues is going on. Frankly, I am satisfied with licensed/trained "shall issue" concealed-carry, and universal BG checks. No fan of OC. But this is what happens with using a prohibitionist social policy model and the inevitable culture war attendant to prohibition.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)looks carefully at how we as a society see and support our education system, our mental health system, our culture of violence, our approach toward bullying, the economic opportunity the country offers young people and how the dominant cultural society views the "other." In a large, heterogeneous population like the United States', such an approach is going to take a long, long time, many difficult conversations, some massively unpopular changes, and a lot of money.
sarisataka
(22,489 posts)but it won't be discussed because you can't reduce it to a sound bite, blame it on a segment of society and say 'gunz' on the internet.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)People say they want to have the conversation, but they mean it only if they can say one or two biting things and then "win."
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)You happen to be in agreement with a number of highly credentialed liberal criminologists in so stating. (David Bordua, James Wright, Peter Rossi (RIP) and Gary Kleck.)
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)........from a very strong article by Don Kates and others from "Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda":
"And there is a sense in which violence is a public health problem. So let me illustrate the limitations of this line of reasoning with a public-health analogy. After research disclosed that mosquitos were the vector for transmission of yellow fever, the disease was not controlled by sending men in white coats to the swamps to remove the mouth parts from all the insects they could find. The only sensible, efficient way to stop the biting was to attack the environment where the mosquitos bred.
Guns are the mouth parts of the violence epidemic. The contemporary urban environment breeds violence no less than swamps breed mosquitos. Attempting to control the problem of violence by trying to disarm the perpetrators is as hopeless as trying to contain yellow fever through mandible control."
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/58tenn.pdf
LWolf
(46,179 posts)While I fully support gun control, getting at the source of the hate and openness to violence is at the core.
I'm ready to start having those difficult conversations.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)well. Such as education -- does the focus on standardized testing leave teachers with less time to identify and help those who are struggling with fitting in? Does it leave schools with less money to provide services to students who are growing up with mental issues? SHOULD everyone "fit in," or should we educate our children in such a way that those who don't fit in feel accepted even if they're not celebrated and embraced? Our mental health system is the same way -- we know it's struggling, but what would help it? What outcomes are we working for? Do we, as a society, want all people to reach their full potentials? Can we answer these questions honestly? Everyone is going to have a different answer, which is why it's so hard.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Of course it does. It also ups the stress levels of everyone involved: districts, admins, teachers, students, parents, to a too-strong degree. Added stress, added pressure, builds more sensitive triggers.
SHOULD everyone "fit in," or should we educate our children in such a way that those who don't fit in feel accepted even if they're not celebrated and embraced?
I will throw some things out there that fit this:
Everybody belongs. Diversity of ALL kinds should be celebrated, not tolerated. Development of extended empathy should be the # 1 priority.
It's easier to move forward with these goals in smaller settings, not institutionalized settings. Smaller school communities, where everybody knows each other and it's much harder for kids to slip through cracks. Anonymity goes away.
Of course, it costs a lot more. Large institutionalized settings are more cost efficient. Does the public have the commitment to fund healthier settings?
Our mental health system is the same way -- we know it's struggling, but what would help it? What outcomes are we working for?
A national health care system (including mental health) that is 100% paid for by taxes, free at point of service, high quality, and easily accessible would remove a great deal of that struggle.
The other need is to make mental health care more acceptable in our culture.
Do we, as a society, want all people to reach their full potentials?
I sure hope so. The hard conversation is this: not everyone's potential is the same. Expecting us to turn out standardized high school and college graduates is simply not possible, and if it were, it would be disrespectful, to say the least.
Celebrating diversity, and celebrating individual strengths, while working together to reach common goals, and to help each other reach our potential on the continuum of life...healthier.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Fantastic! And goodonya!
Far too many on both sides of the issue believe that the facts are self-evident. In truth.....they are not. In fact, they are sometimes counter-intuitive.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)The GOP would support that, if they thought evolution was real.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)And take the guns away from the cops also.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Or are you going to rely on others with guns to achieve your goal?
And you would support a massive violation of the 4th Amendment?
How do you confiscate over 300 million unregistered firearms in this country?
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)about how dreadful the latest mass shooting is, the wailing that we can't stop it, I think we should go straight to the source, the guns, and take them away.
Or locking up all young white males might be as effective. Someone upstream suggested that.
But essentially, anyone who just bemoans the latest shooting and doesn't face up to the problem with guns, is hypocritical.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)You'll have to deal with those issues before your utopian dream can happen.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)semi-anomalous mass-shooting like today's, about thirty people are murdered every day from guns. So it's trivial. Just the price we pay for the sacred second amendment. I mean, really, a couple dozen people a day just aren't anywhere as important as anyone's right to own a gun.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)You wouldn't even get 5 states to agree on getting rid of the 2A much less 2/3 of them. If we can't get around it then we have to go through it, somehow. I don't have an answer as to how.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)there's not point in complaining every time someone gets killed with a gun. It's just the price we pay for the second amendment. And everyone who says we can't get around it, is simply endorsing the slaughter.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)
madinmaryland
(65,713 posts)common sense to gun control.
Of course the gun industrial complex will never let that happen. They just want to sell another 300 million gunz in the next ten years in this country. FUCK THEM.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)1. Even getting the Congress to convene a Constitutional Convention?
2. Get 2/3rd's of the Congress to pass a repeal or amend the 2A?
3. Get 3/4th's of the States to ratify such a repeal or amendment to the 2A?
Bear in mind that it takes only 13 states that would scuttle any such repeal or change.
Arizona
Alabama
Georgia
Nevada
Utah
Oklahoma
Texas
New Mexico
Missouri
Idaho
Oregon
Washington State
Montana
Wyoming
S. Dakota
N. Dakota
Etc.
All those states, and may more, would vote down any change to the 2A.
madinmaryland
(65,713 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)or confiscation of all firearms, as some have suggested.
madinmaryland
(65,713 posts)(interesting screen name you have) and would be talking about REAL reform.
Of course, now that Citizen's United we now know that any attempt at real reform is gone. Thanks to LaPierre and ALL of the lackeys who support the GIC.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)It stood for Galloping Ghost because I was always galloping to my bird as discreetly as I could, ergo, Galloping Ghost.
And I agree with you about CU, it's an abomination that needs to be eliminated.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Has the most liberal gun laws in the US and would oppose any effort to repeal the 2d Amendment. As would North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Kansas and Nebraska. Probably others that don't immediately come to mind.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)A majority of Democratic legislators in Minnesota would not support a repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
We have a strong tradition of hunting (not that that has anything to do with the 2A). While we do not have the right to keep and bear arms in our constitution (I don't know why) we do have a constitutional right to hunt and fish. A compromise was made and trapping was removed from the amendment that was passed in 1998. If I recall correctly, over 70% of Minnesotans voted for the amendment (and not voting on the measure was counted as a 'no vote'.
(Minnesota elected a lightweight republican U.S. Senator to an open seat in 1994 because the Democratic candidate was in favor of gun control. For the first time, Minnesota's 8th district in NE Minnesota, voted for the republican candidate because of gun control.)
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Maybe a new approach is necessary. Ever time people get shot with an assault rifle, we want to ban assault rifles, hi capacity magazines, etc. We have already gone around and around with handguns. Several times. What we need is a way to keep firearms away from certain people. That means we have to identify these people and deny them access to firearms. I other words, we have to violate their constitutional rights before they are convicted of a crime. And it means we have to restore the ability of police and other authorities to commit people for involuntary observation when they exhibit weird behavior. And it means we have to be able to spy on Twitter feeds and other social media to track down people who give us certain clues. All this stuff presents all sorts of constitutional problems.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)
Turbineguy
(39,963 posts)Since the lives don't seem to matter, profits might. Stay home and let people know why.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)As long as pretty much anyone can go to Wal-Mart or Dick's Sporting Goods and buy a gun, pretty much anyone will be able to go to Wal-Mart or Dick's Sporting Goods and buy a gun.
That seems to be the sad truth, here. And it sucks.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Live in a bunker, never go to public events like the movies, shopping etc unless in full tactical mode anyway.
Always have your escape routes mapped out ahead of time.
Live in the knowledge that anyone you see walking down the street, your co-workers, students at school can kill you at anytime.
Yep that's the kind of society the founders had in mind all right.
Just so limp dick manly men can hump their damn weapons of mass destruction every night till the day they lose it and another 10, 20, 30 people die for nothing.
treestar
(82,383 posts)They usually say everyone should have a gun. Yes, as a college student, you should carry a gun in case one of the other students starts shooting - then you could kill the shooting student before he shoots many others. Imagine how many more shooting that would cause, with people making mistakes about whether someone else was shooting.
Bullet proof vests for all?
MainSt99
(31 posts)IMO, much of the gun violence in this country would end if the Right Wing Noise Machine changed it's message of hate, loathing and blaming the victim. Many of the wedge issues used by the political right are calculated to turn people against each other:-- Racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, forced childbirth.
Today, the vast propaganda machine the Republicans have built, is spreading a message of violence. Crazy people with guns respond.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)for sure!
randys1
(16,286 posts)leftyladyfrommo
(19,970 posts)Maybe not so much these mass shootings. Except there was one not very long ago where the guy was known for his hatred of women.
But lots of everyday shootings from domestic disturbances are about misogyny. The most dangerous place for a woman to be is in her own home.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts) Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)How many other Amendments do you want to eliminate? What other rights do you want to give up to the next Republican President?
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)I have not seen a single proposal that would stop mass shootings, not one that is constitutional anyway.
As long as the 2A is in effect, this will not stop.
Ron Green
(9,869 posts)And it's part of the plan, in my opinion. A fearful and alienated country responds better to consumer capitalism than does a secure and connected one.
Every action taken by the top-down corporatists engenders fear: suburbanization, automobile dependency, consumer credit, off shoring of employment, fast food, MORE GUNZ, you name it.
Of course the NRA work for the firearms manufacturers and therefore gin up the fear after every shooting (and at all other times) to sell more guns, but more importantly they push the narrative that we are all separate and need to protect ourselves and our families from each other. Fear of the Other is so centrally important to the maintenance of capitalism that groups like the NRA cannot do otherwise.
This is why I consider the message of Pope Francis so important, despite the Kim Davis flap and other problems with the RCC: a basic message of love replaces fear, and people who love in an extended and social way don't need to fondle guns.
Lancero
(3,267 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)then the answer will be, "We need more guns".
ck4829
(37,593 posts)* Extremely narcissistic and/or a sociopath
* Which of course comes with an illusory superiority complex
* Socially distant, even dehumanizing towards others, regarding them as machines or animals at best
* Plays the victim and considers himself set apart from others or isolated, he will believe this even as he sabotaged relationships with others by his own hand
* Racist, sexist, homophobic attitudes (Given his possible link to 4 Chan, we will probably see this first)
Now we can't ban the five things above, but we can and we MUST make it a social norm that they are unacceptable.
karadax
(284 posts)If 100 % prevention isn't going to happen then 100% accountability for the people pulling the trigger should.
OneGrassRoot
(23,943 posts)The anti-choice movement realized that it will be too hard to overturn Roe v Wade. Abortion is legal.
So, instead, they set out to try to make the process of obtaining an abortion more and more difficult, via some really FUBAR state legislation restricting clinics providing the reproductive services.
I fully realize it is a vastly different situation. Still, the general approach may be worth considering. Rather than focus on overturning the, I believe, grossly misinterpreted 2nd Amendment, make the "business" of guns much more difficult.
Also, working to transform culture away from glorifying guns and gun ownership would be one step. Respect, yes; romanticizing and glorifying guns, no.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)however, gun crime is actually going down.
I don't know how to stop some crazed individual from getting a gun and doing what happened in Oregon.
Apparently the three handguns and one long gun the shooter had were purchased legally. I don't know if there were background checks done.
I am in favor of UBC.
Deadshot
(384 posts)I'm tired of those arguments, too.
Gun control IS the answer. We need to make guns harder to obtain.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)Ex Lurker
(3,966 posts)No searches without probable cause, etc. You'd either have a toothless law, or a police state.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)
geomon666
(7,519 posts)Just because it's impossible in our lifetime, doesn't mean it isn't the answer.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)but I'm free to have as many as I want in my home.
geomon666
(7,519 posts)They'd be banned from the face of the Earth.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)
Unless of course you come across a law abiding citizen with a gun who just happens to want to murder a lot of people at that moment.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)astronomically small, I don't even worry about it, besides, I don't even live in Flagstaff proper, I live about 40 min. away.
The only time I ever faced hostile fire was during my Army days, and those are over.
geomon666
(7,519 posts)But increasing by the day, unfortunately.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)you are safer now than 20 years ago.
geomon666
(7,519 posts)Their studies also don't include certain other gun crimes so, yeah.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)murders, homicides, accidental shootings, and they break them down into different catagories, like the number of deaths by rifles, by handguns, etc.
geomon666
(7,519 posts)Suicides can go down, murders, etc. Mass killings, those can still go up. And they have been.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)but the vast majority of firearm deaths in the country are perpetrated by handguns, including suicides.
The bottom line is that the vast majority of firearm owners are responsible citizens who will never use their gun in a criminal or negligent manner.
That's not to say that we don't need some new laws to help reduce the instances of firearm violence.
geomon666
(7,519 posts)When you say the vast majority are responsible citizens. That being said, in order to stop these horrible crimes, personally I just see no other option than to take your guns away. But we know that will never happen in our lifetimes as I said before.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Taking guns away from those that will never use them in a criminal or negligent way won't, IMHO, reduce the rate of firearm deaths, except maybe a modest reduction in suicides, the criminals will always find a way to acquire a firearm.
I give you the example of the drug smuggling across our southern border, tons of illicit drugs enter our country across the border every day, how hard would it be to smuggle thousands upon thousands of firearms using the same routes that drug smugglers use?
If guns were banned tomorrow, a HUGE black market would spring up overnight to supply those that want them, not only that, but, again, IMHO, there would not be widespread compliance from gun owners to turn them in.
geomon666
(7,519 posts)Nothing ever gets accomplished when you're shouting.
And of course it wouldn't be easy. Assuming you could pass the necessary laws, amend the Constitution, get past all of the lawsuits, you'll have criminals acquiring as many firearms as they can. You'd need to bolster police forces, border patrols, etc. That takes a lot of money and resources. It would take many many years to weed out the vast majority of already manufactured guns in this country, to say nothing of newly produced, even 3D printed guns.
On the plus side, guns are more difficult to hide than drugs. They are easier to track down also and since a gun has to be manufactured by a company, that company can be held liable for the damages caused by that gun. We do it with cars all the time.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)The problem with that would be that it would be a foreign company manufacturing those firearms not subject to American laws..
And so you really want to bolster police forces and border patrol forces?
IMHO, that would lead to a defacto police state, we have a problem in the country with police corruption and brutality, it would only get worse with more police on the streets.
geomon666
(7,519 posts)We seize funds and target foreign companies all of the time. As for police forces, I would like to think we could hire better people than the gunslinging yahoos we have right now.
leftyladyfrommo
(19,970 posts)the more violent we become.
It's a vicious Cycle that just goes round and round. And with each cycle it just gets worse.
Why do parents let their kids sit for hours playing violent games? The boys in Colorado were building bombs in the garage and no one noticed?
This problem is not a simple one. But we are raising violent children and we need to start looking atThe why.
It's not helpful when both parents work for companies that expect employees to be on the job 24 /7. And both parents need to work just to make the bills.
Who is raising the children?
Vinca
(53,775 posts)The 2nd Amendment isn't sacred, it can be changed or repealed. The righties want to go after the 14th amendment so they can't carp about those of us who feel the 2nd Amendment needs an overhaul. For starters, we could take it literally and have guns in the hands of "militias." Of course, this is all a pipe dream and it will never happen. Nothing will happen. We're on a hamster wheel that goes around and around and around. There is a mass shooting and we react in horror. The bodies are tallied up and we cry. The pundits spend every waking minute talking about "what will we do, what will we do." Mental health, background checks, mental health, background checks. Blah, blah, blah. Congress does nothing. The Kardashians take over the news again, pundits move on, the NRA knows the drill and doesn't even have to speak about it anymore. What are the poll numbers? Will Trump win? Carson's tied with him. Who's the new late show host? What about the Pope and old Kim Davis? Huh? Huh? Breaking news: We have reports of an active shooter at (fill in the blank) in the state of (fill in the blank). And the wheel goes around.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)"oh we can't do anything....nothing will work"
BULLS**T! Its BEEN DONE in other countries!
So 10 more innocents lay dead this morning because we allow gun humpers to terrorize our lives for NO REASON!
Selling gunz and fear is an all-american blood sport and we could stop it at any time but apparently we as a country don't give a flying **** about our children!
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)you can't constitutionally do in this country what Australia did.
branford
(4,462 posts)The Constitution has been amended 27 times. It's hardly impossible.
However, you will also have to repeal the state analogs to the Second Amendment which exist in almost every state. The Second Amendment additionally only proscribes certain types of firearm regulation. Many gun control proposals, at least in theory, are entirely Constitutional. They fail to pass because of the lack of popular and electoral support, and not the Second Amendment. The fact that much of the legislation suggested would have had no effect on the crimes the purportedly address certainly hasn't helped.
If you cannot pass UBC's when 90% of Americans allegedly support the policy, attempts to repeal part of the Bill of Rights seems to be an abject waste to time and political resources
Whether you like it or not, firearms are an accepted, established and often cherished part of American history and culture to a majority of Americans. Polls from reputable firms like Pew and Gallup, even after events like Sandy Hook, indicate ever increasing support for gun rights and against restriction.
If you want to convince your fellow Americans that strict firearm regulation is advisable, I would suggest you begin by not accusing tens of millions of law-abiding Americans of being complicit in the murder of children or having an odd sexual fetish (e.g., "gun humper," "ammosexual," etc.). Juvenile attempts at emphasis by misspelling "guns" is also hardly an effective persuasive tool.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Gun violence has been on the decline since 1993 -- the public is largely unaware.
http://www.citylab.com/crime/2015/09/violent-crime-rates-still-declining/408103/
bowens43
(16,064 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)We've seen the greatest reduction in gun violence in US history over the past 20 years, so if the question is "how do we reduce gun violence?" we should probably look at how we did reduce gun violence so much.
If the question is "how do we stop random mass shootings?" that's a very different issue, and I'm not sure.
libtodeath
(2,892 posts)it doesnt do away with any beloved rw bullshit 2a rights and protects us from their terrorism.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)reading the responses to your thread.
I want gun control, but gun control by itself is not the answer.
I think the real answer lies in uncovering the ugly underbelly, no matter how unpleasant that may be.
Why is our society full of aggressive people who fear, who hate, and who take their personal hate, fear, and stress out in violent ways?
Address that, and we'll begin to approach an answer.
CTyankee
(68,079 posts)So that's no excuse.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)wanting to look at the source of the violence is making an "excuse."
And, of course, gun control has to be part of the answer.
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)society. We should have more counseling centers open and foster an environment where it's normal to use them, instead of it being stigmatized.
Also, we do need more gun control.
leftyladyfrommo
(19,970 posts)We can change the Constitution. If something isn't working anymore it can be changed.
LannyDeVaney
(1,033 posts)Apparently, everything would be fine if everyone had a gun everywhere, 24/7.
Churches, schools, ..., every time there is a mass killing they point out the lack of guns as the reason.
So, obviously, their point is more guns = less deaths. No question about it.
Ollie Garchy
(2 posts)NRA influence in Congress is the reason we do not have a national gun policy. As a result, we can morn for victims, call for justice and and demand national background checks until blue in the face. Congress will debate. The NRA will fear monger and sing the Amendment 2 tune, and then behind closed doors threaten to destroy Congressmen voting against NRA interests. We've seen it.
So, don't worry about screaming for justice or demanding change. Use the Constitution, specifically Article 4 Section 4, which guarantees each state a republican form of government and requires the federal government protect each state from invasion foreign or domestic.
The guarantee of a republican government reserves for the citizens of states the right and responsibility of selecting candidates and voting for the candidate best suited to represent them and their state in the national legislature and, per Electoral College, to cast the states official votes for the President of the United States. Accordingly, any money or propaganda from beyond a states borders which is meant to influence the outcome of an election or legislation constitutes an illegal invasion of the state.
One of the best examples of this money invasion is Red State, an organized to sway local and state elections by injecting money/propaganda for candidates representing their Conservative goals. In a television interview a Red State executives told how with a few thousand dollars two of the four candidates Red State targeted were elected and resulted in a conservative majority controlling the New York state legislature.
An invasion of money can and has been as effective in forming political opinion as has invading armies. These manipulations are violations of Article 4 Section 4 and should be challenged in court or reversed by executive actions. The ultimate argument is which is more important free speech regardless of residency or free elections and sovereignty of states.
Go after the NRA for violating Article 4,Section 4 of the Constitution. It can't hurt. It circumvents Congress in favor of the judiciary and justifies Executive Action.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,961 posts)Along the lines of the anti-abortion, anti-smoking, and anti-drunk driving movements. Relentless movements that keep on keeping on in the face of multiple legal defeats. Movements that work to convert people culturally -- not just change laws.
Confiscation? Won't happen. Even if you changed the Constitution, getting guns out of the hands of gun owners would take a generation or more, and you'd give rise to a massive smuggling industry.
Gun Control? Doesn't change anything.
Start by finding the allies and stakeholders, examples of which include: Victims groups. Law enforcement. Big insurance. C-store industry groups.
Start educating around talking points that could include:
- How many times more likely you are likely to shoot yourself or a loved one than a burglar
- How a good alarm system protects your property even when you are not home and allows for instant law enforcement notification during a home invasion
- Even experienced and/or well known gun users like Chris Kyle and Charles Vacca were killed at gun ranges with firearms
- For every story of how a woman shot an intruder that turned out to be a rapist/serial killer, there are many times that number of stories of a kid that picked up a gun and shot a playmate or family member
- Guns make suicide easy
- Does the 2nd Amendment make all of the other amendments possible, or does it make the violation of those amendments possible. Does the 2nd Amendment allow us to defend life and property, or is it mostly used to take life and property?
Encourage law makers to allow insurance companies to increase homeowners insurance for gun owners, and give discounts for registration of firearms, properly installed gun safes, and completion of firearms safety courses.
No-fault injury funds to compensate those injured and killed by firearms should be funded via taxation on ammunition sales.
Public service announcements showing victims of firearms.
Stiff prison sentences for those that commit crimes with firearms.
It took 240 years to get here, and there is no quick fix.
Iggo
(49,863 posts)
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)and we can't keep ignoring the record of the United States compared to other developed countries in terms of gun deaths. But I think there's another piece here and it has to do with the progressive agenda. They will always be crazy people and there will always be people who for whatever reason want to do harm. And the gun-control part would help to keep guns away from them but I think as a general rule, people who have good jobs, who have a home, friends, family, interests, and a reason to get up in the morning, unless there are mentally ill, do not aim to do stuff like this. People with something to live for usually want to live for it. We need to get this society back to a place where people don't have to work a zillion hours to make ends meet, where families aren't fractured under the strain, and where people have lives worth living for. That might cut down on some of the disenfranchisement that drives people to do this. People who have something to live for it usually want to live and they don't usually have homicidal tendencies.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)fits all answer.
One of the generals (can't remember his name) said that military weapons used for war should not be available to the public. And he is right.
But then comes the type of hate and greed that is common in most of our churches, schools and media. When are we going to admit that this plays a part in this epidemic?
And yes, mental illness sometimes plays a part also. That is harder because not all persons with mental illness are violent. And it is not as if they are marked with an X so the violent ones can be easily identified. Can we target a group of people because a few of them are dangerous?
I also think that our economy and the results on families and the life of the individual plays a big part in the anger that leads to many of these killings.
So no one answer is going to stop what is going on. I honestly do not have the answer.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Because otherwise your ignoring totally the violent person who still wants to harm others.
If your gun control fantasy goes perfect than at best all you have done is made him use another tool- maybe a less effective knife or maybe a homemade bomb that does even worse carnage. But since you can never totally eliminate guns no more than you can drugs odds are they will still get them.
But if you address the violet person, then you've eliminated the threat no matter what- either by treatment or if not treatable having them in a facility where they are not a danger to society.
But people here want to focus on simple, feel good measures instead of the much harder discussion of mental health in this country.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)........that there are Democrats who can actually think clearly on this contentious issue.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Matrosov
(1,098 posts)Some people have already claimed the college students not being armed as being the problem.
In the minds of such people, gun violence won't come to an end until pulling a gun on someone means having ten people around you pull a gun on you in return.
Almost like Mutually Assured Destruction with firearms..
Ichigo Kurosaki
(167 posts)the biggest thing would be getting the news media to quit the large scale coverage they display about these tragedies and one of the biggest thing would be for them to refer to the shooter as 'shooter X' even when they know the name of the shooter. I think that would go a long way to stemming the mindset of these mentally ill people that want to be famous.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Chris Rock has it right - make every bullet cost 5,000 dollars.
CTyankee
(68,079 posts)
Kablooie
(19,095 posts)and train everyone to shoot and kill anyone else who is shooting and killing.
It works in the movies so it has to work here.
Doc_Technical
(3,752 posts)eom
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)and what's your plan to collect the semi-automatic firearms already in the hands of the public?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)You are aware that there are millions upon millions of semi auto's in the country?
liberal N proud
(61,189 posts)All they can do is bully anyone who doesn't support guns in every waistband.
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)They *must* stop the nonstop 25 hr coverage when these events happen. And seriously consider withholding name and pics of the perp. (I know, the logistics would be difficult)
The type of sick freaks who commit these acts thrive on this stuff and fantasize about the potential attention.
uppityperson
(116,011 posts)How do we avoid mass murders? How do we prevent people from physically committing them? How do we prevent people from wanting to commit them? How do we keep ourselves safe if people want to kill us?
What is the question may seem like something obvious, but it is not. Let's address the question first. Once we agree on that, then we can work toward a solution.
Straw Man
(6,942 posts)... with very different answers.
Prevent them from arming themselves. I don't think most gun control advocates realize how difficult this really is. You can make it harder for people to acquire guns legally, but spree killers don't care how many laws they break nor how much money they may have to spend to arm themselves for their personal Armageddons.
Adam Lanza was willing to kill his mother to get the weapons he needed. How would universal background checks have stopped him? Dylan Roof passed his background check. So did Seung-Hui Cho and the shooter in Oregon. Couple this with the fact that there are other ways to commit mass murder than guns -- arson, for example -- and you'll see that gun control isn't the fix-all that many see it as. Passing laws may be cheap and may feel good, but it won't be particularly effective.
Hardening what are currently "soft targets" -- e.g. schools, theaters, etc. -- is another approach. Add metal detectors at entrances, increase armed security, etc. This would be very expensive, and would certainly have a negative impact on public perceptions of safety.
Radically change American society. Provide more and better jobs. Improve safety nets to provide for the economic, physical, and mental health of the America people. Address bullying in schools and workplaces. Use our educational system to explore alternatives to the prevailing winner-take-all ethic in American society and to address the emotional and spiritual needs of our children. Provide effective, stigma-free counseling to all who seek it.
That's really the same as your first question set. I would suggest that until we tackle the larger task of curing the ills of what is really a very sick society, we're merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.