Jump to content

Recommended Posts

An interesting point has been brought up in discussions with others on this issue.  All of our discussions, arguments, etc. will do nothing to solve or get anywhere on this issue.  But I think there is one thing we can all agree upon, we as a nation have a problem with gun violence.  It should be up to our lawmakers, not necessarily come out with a solution right away, but it is the duty of lawmakers to begin a discussion.  With each other, and with the American People.  There needs to be a comprehensive congressional hearing on gun violence.  A fair and equitable debate has to be had.  Testimony from both sides needs to be presented.  This will prevent a knee-jerk reaction.  From what I can tell there has not been a congressional hearing on gun violence since the GOP took control of the Senate in 2014.

 

Let's have our lawmakers sit down, discuss this issue like rational people and maybe make some progress on this.  Yelling at each other about what should be banned, or what background should be checked, etc. will do nothing.  But at the very minimum a discussion (a rational one at that) between our elected officials needs to happen.  It is the starting point.  Is what needs to happen.  

 

Though unfortunately the current state of our politics I do not see this happening.  Which is unfortunate.  So I guess I will pencil this discussion again when we have our next mass shooting in 3 months.  Sigh.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Again, how are you going to get the criminals to turn in their handguns? I'd be curious to hear how many handguns were turned in by criminals in the UK and Australia, but my gut tells me that it was probably close to zero.

 

You create a financial incentive for them to do so.  Buy-back programs as the carrot, severe legal penalties (and confiscation) as the stick.  This won't end death-by-handgun, but it would over time severely reduce the presence and use of the weapons.  To use the popular, child-like language favored by the lobbyists, most of the "bad guys with a gun" are holding a gun that probably once belonged to a normal guy.  When all of the normal guys are cashing in their now illegal handguns there are a lot less handguns on the black market, and they become more costly.

 

It's not perfect, but it's something.  Whatever we try, even if it works pretty well, it's going to take a long time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, there's no reason for additional laws when it's obvious that the existing laws aren't working.

This is why that argument is pretty much bullshit.

 

http://www.armedwithreason.com/rebutting-the-criminals-dont-follow-laws-and-gun-control-only-hurts-law-abiding-citizens-argument-against-gun-control/

 

A couple of other thoughts. By your logic, we should abolish the legislative branch of our government.

 

Also the purpose of the legislative body is to pass laws to keep US citizens safe, our country orderly, defend our rights and allow us to pursue happiness. In my mind gun violence is a problem and honestly a preventable one. My biggest question for you is, do you believe that gun violence is a problem?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, that was an interesting read. Thanks, Kevin. Here is some interesting data from today's paper regarding the frequency of mass shootings. They are far from "rare" as they were called in an earlier post.

 

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/column-will-next-mass-shooting-be-today/2248114

Link to post
Share on other sites

That article doesn't prove or disprove a thing. First of all, comparing one country to another is useless. And that supposed downtick in gun deaths in Brazil after gun control was enacted? How does it explain this headline? 

 

Brazil gun killings rise to highest level in 35 years

 

According to Wikipedia, 11 years after a gun registry was enacted in Brazil, more than half of all guns in circulation are unregistered. 

 

My biggest question for you is, do you believe that gun violence is a problem?

That's a rather ridiculous question.

 

I agree, that was an interesting read. Thanks, Kevin. Here is some interesting data from today's paper regarding the frequency of mass shootings. They are far from "rare" as they were called in an earlier post.

 

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/column-will-next-mass-shooting-be-today/2248114

The article mentions that the tracker deviates from the FBI's requirement of 3 or more deaths to be considered a mass shooting; this is done to increase the figures and stir emotions. It also appears that the shooters' deaths are included in the figures; I assume it is also done to pad the figures.

 

I noticed that only about 15% of the "mass shootings" included the name of the perpetrator. I assume that this means that the other 85% were mostly gang shootings and other street-level criminal activities, not the types of unprovoked school and workplace shootings that people are citing as a reason to enact more gun legislation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

charlton-heston-1-1.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

 First of all, comparing one country to another is useless.

 

Well if we can't compare two countries because they are different, then what should we do?  Only compare things that are exactly the same?

 

While admittedly the cultural context around gun usage is different in every country, we have no choice but to look at the dynamics.  The most important observable dynamic in gun measures is change.  Where were they before, and how did they change.  While we can't expect our outcomes, or circumstances to be exactly the same, we can, look at commonalities between measures nations have taken, that have proven their efficacy statistically. 

 

This is a lot harder than sitting on our couches and saying, "Different country, why bother?", but it's potentially valuable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a rather ridiculous question.

 

You know it really isn't.  Let me clarify.  Do you think we have a problem with gun violence in our country today?  Is the process of curbing the amount of gun deaths a responsibility of our elected representatives?  Is it the responsibility of our society as a whole?  

 

Reading your posts I have no idea actually where you stand on gun violence (not that killing people is ok, but if we should actually do anything about it.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

While admittedly the cultural context around gun usage is different in every country, we have no choice but to look at the dynamics.  The most important observable dynamic in gun measures is change.  Where were they before, and how did they change.  While we can't expect our outcomes, or circumstances to be exactly the same, we can, look at commonalities between measures nations have taken, that have proven their efficacy statistically. 

The article posted earlier pointed to a decrease in gun murders in Brazil after gun registration was mandated a decade ago, but now their gun murders are at an all-time high and the majority of guns haven't been registered. In the United States, the number of guns and concealed handgun license holders have skyrocketed, but our murder rate has declined, so I'm not sure that anything has had its efficacy proven statistically.

 

You know what reduces the murder rate? Effective, proactive policing. Early signs are that the fallout over cop vs. civilian shootings in this country has resulted in less aggressive policing and a resulting rise in shootings in the affected areas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading your posts I have no idea actually where you stand on gun violence (not that killing people is ok, but if we should actually do anything about it.)

Can't believe that I even have to say this, but you can rest assured that I am against gun violence and I understand that it is a problem. 

 

For the record, I'm also against kicking puppies and slapping babies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't believe that I even have to say this, but you can rest assured that I am against gun violence and I understand that it is a problem. 

 

For the record, I'm also against kicking puppies and slapping babies.

 

Thanks for that.  Follow up.  

 

As you admit it is a problem, where does the responsibility lie to solve or tackle this issue?   

Link to post
Share on other sites

As you admit it is a problem, where does the responsibility lie to solve or tackle this issue?   

The only ones who can really solve the issue are the gang members, drug dealers and street criminals who commit the vast majority of murders. If they won't put down their guns, then it's up to the cops to throw them behind bars. There are already sufficient laws on the books to cover their crimes, but I won't complain if stronger sentences are handed out to them. I don't want the government to turn me into a felon overnight by issuing new laws willy-nilly that won't do anything to solve the problem but eventually criminalize me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me one law or loophole that would prevent gun violence. And if you say ban and confiscate all guns, do you think a constitutional amendment would even remotely pass?

 

I don't think one can solve the issue. Perhaps one can tackle it by examining years of societal breakdowns, recidivism, downright stupidity. How does one identify the crazy shit that does these things before they happen? Mass shootings capture the media attention but Chicago has that same number gunned down every weekend and one continues to blame the gun instead of the assholes that do the shooting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to see some gun control advocates' solutions tested in the real world -- perhaps for a 5-year period? A left-leaning state with a serious gun crime problem (NY or CA?) could ban all guns, offer a buyback program and then go house-to-house to collect them from those who refuse to turn in their firearms. The sticking point would be that police, security guards and bodyguards who protect politicians and the wealthy would also have to be disarmed. They could keep some firearms locked away for emergencies, but I'd want to see how "the UK solution" would work on the streets of America. My hunch is that it wouldn't be pretty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to see some gun control advocates' solutions tested in the real world -- perhaps for a 5-year period? A left-leaning state with a serious gun crime problem (NY or CA?) could ban all guns, offer a buyback program and then go house-to-house to collect them from those who refuse to turn in their firearms. The sticking point would be that police, security guards and bodyguards who protect politicians and the wealthy would also have to be disarmed. They could keep some firearms locked away for emergencies, but I'd want to see how "the UK solution" would work on the streets of America. My hunch is that it wouldn't be pretty.

 

Yeah that is an extremely stupid idea.  Mainly because states do not exist on their own and it would be easy to bring in firearms from other states.  Any gun control would have to be done at (and should be done at) the federal level. 

 

 

The only ones who can really solve the issue are the gang members, drug dealers and street criminals who commit the vast majority of murders. If they won't put down their guns, then it's up to the cops to throw them behind bars. There are already sufficient laws on the books to cover their crimes, but I won't complain if stronger sentences are handed out to them. I don't want the government to turn me into a felon overnight by issuing new laws willy-nilly that won't do anything to solve the problem but eventually criminalize me.

 

Talk about an unrealistic plan here.  There are huge socio-economic factors at play here.  I agree with you the majority of murders and gun violence is committed by criminal elements in society and the "mass shootings" are merely another symptom.  Horrific as they are, it seems to be the only thing that gets people talking about it.  But the criminal element is not going to put down their guns.  Nor will the police be able effectively remove all of those elements off of the streets.  Nor can our prison population be able to handle this.  

 

If we can agree on one thing it is this.  There are people in our society that should not be allowed to have guns, they use guns to commit crimes.  

 

The question is how do we as society best deal how to solve this issue.  Unfortunately there has to be some compromise.  It is all needs vs want.  At some point we will compromise, but for now this has reached its end. .  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the NRA will devise some new ideas into how we as a society should address the problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The shooter's mother sounds like just any other responsible gun owner who was merely exercising her 2nd amendment rights and spending quality time with her son. http://nyti.ms/1OgyBmZ

That article portrays her as an intelligent, caring mother who was concerned about gun safety. It raises the slightest of red flags with the revelation of her own Asperger's, but I have no idea about her medical history and her legal status pertaining to the ownership of guns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me one law or loophole that would prevent gun violence. And if you say ban and confiscate all guns, do you think a constitutional amendment would even remotely pass?

 

You can't prevent it. The goal is to radically reduce it. Think like a technocrat not an idealogue.
Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't prevent it. The goal is to radically reduce it. Think like a technocrat not an idealogue.

Ok, build enough prisons to hold the 1 million gang members in the United States. There are 150,000 in Chicago alone. That'll be a good start.

 

It would also be helpful to close our nation's border with Mexico to stop the flow of Central American gang members into the country.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...