U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-24-2016, 10:04 AM
 
32,320 posts, read 26,189,545 times
Reputation: 18950

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
I've followed this issue for a while now, also by way of more than a few gun threads, and though I have not been altogether against gun control, I have come to accept there isn't much that can be done to stop gun violence in America or even to lessen the body count by any acceptable level. I am no gun expert, and I have been chastised for having an opinion though I am not an expert, even for relying on experts instead. However, as compared to many gun enthusiasts in these threads, for example, I just tend to pay closer attention to other experts that tend to make more sense without all the gun obsession detail down to the patina. Accordingly, rather than go round and round those gun circles, I'm glad to have this to offer as my position. IOWs, I tend to agree almost entirely with what is written here. Not that the "answers" put forth here are altogether satisfying, but about the best we can do I think...

"What can be done to address this much larger toll of gun violence, which leaves nearly 100,000 Americans killed or wounded each year?"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ks-what-doesnt
the usual things wont work, banning guns, banning high cap magazines, tougher gun laws, etc. until we do one thing in this world, and that is get rid of the hate that permeates society as a whole. until that happens, all the guns laws in the world will not do a damned thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-24-2016, 10:09 AM
 
1,355 posts, read 886,766 times
Reputation: 1090
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
Why is it that every single "fix" is aimed at law abiding gun owners (such as myself) and are punitive? What have we/I done to deserve punishment? I've never shot at anyone, I've never done a drive by shooting, I've never threatened a person with a gun, yet every single law adopted or proposed constrains or even punishes me and the million upon millions like me.
When Bill Clinton decided to tackle guns early in his presidency, former Jimmy Carter aide Jody Powell let down his guard in a private memo and said what gun owners have always known as the truth:

Quote:
As much as I hate to say it, the NRA is effective primarily because it is largely right when it claims that most gun control laws inconvenience and threaten the law-abiding while having little or no impact on violent crime or criminals. I support registration in principle. But two questions need to be asked. Are the people causing the problem going to comply voluntarily? If not, do you have a way to effectively enforce compliance? If the answer is ‘no’ in both cases, consider whether the benefits are worth making Bob Dole majority leader.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2016, 11:10 AM
 
9,477 posts, read 4,551,920 times
Reputation: 5381
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
I'm not sure whether you really believe people are "afraid" of guns or whether you keep repeating that sort of thing to demonstrate you are not with a bit too much bravado for my taste, but for me anyway..., I am in no way afraid of guns. I have fired weapons a good many times with no fear whatsoever.

It is others with guns that concern me, in particular the wackos with guns that we are ALL afraid to encounter, right?

Or right, your gun is bigger and badder than their gun, and you're ready for them. That it?

Give it a rest already...
I have kept from getting robbed and maybe killed twice in my life because I was carrying. I don't care what you think.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2016, 11:17 AM
 
6,550 posts, read 9,462,950 times
Reputation: 3137
Maybe ban 5 to 10 guns high power guns that hold like 8+ bullets without reloading I am not talking about banning all guns

Maybe something like Carfax but for guns

You have to take a gun safety class before owning any gun when they put this into place anybody that has bought a gun in the last 5 to 10 has to take the safety class to
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2016, 11:22 AM
 
9,477 posts, read 4,551,920 times
Reputation: 5381
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJboutit View Post
Maybe ban 5 to 10 guns high power guns that hold like 8+ bullets without reloading I am not talking about banning all guns

Maybe something like Carfax but for guns

You have to take a gun safety class before owning any gun when they put this into place anybody that has bought a gun in the last 5 to 10 has to take the safety class to
You do realize that the police say it is not uncommon for them to have to shoot a criminal multiple times to stop them. 8 may not be enough, especially if they are high. Someone had a post yesterday where the police shot a man 55 times before he stopped.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2016, 12:05 PM
 
3,217 posts, read 1,715,920 times
Reputation: 1842
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJboutit View Post
Maybe ban 5 to 10 guns high power guns that hold like 8+ bullets without reloading I am not talking about banning all guns

Maybe something like Carfax but for guns

You have to take a gun safety class before owning any gun when they put this into place anybody that has bought a gun in the last 5 to 10 has to take the safety class to
If you only want to ban HIGH power guns then you won't be banning the AR15.
Ar15's shoot a .223 or 5.56 round that is banned in some states for deer hunting. It is considered inhumane to shoot deer with a round that is not powerful enough to kill the deer quickly.
This round is more suited for small game like hogs, coyotes and such.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2016, 12:19 PM
 
Location: Huntsville
5,414 posts, read 4,047,684 times
Reputation: 6180
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
Still, and/or again, I am surprised anyone with respect for the Constitution would suggest restricting what the media reports.

A) The media's more important purpose is to investigate the truth and inform, entertainment as well I suppose, but given their goal to inform, that's what they do. They should NOT judge nor should anyone else judge what the public should be informed or not other than perhaps in the case of the more extreme cases of "classified information." Even then sometimes, how the media serves this role is ultimately more important than most other considerations all considered.

B) I have a very difficult time believing that a nut with intent to commit an act of terrorism will not find their justification and/or satisfaction regardless what the media reports. Or if I am wrong about that, I would be very interested to see the statistics, evidence or proof to the contrary.


The media has glamourized violence and criminal activity. I'm not talking just the news reporters, but movies, video games, social media, etc.... It's literally everywhere you look. Even the new Toyota Prius commercial revolves around people running from the police. We are so desensitized to violence that we no longer realize that it's there. But our subconscious does.

There are times where the media should be able to use some judgment of their own on whether or not something should be reported. Freedom of Speech was put there to ensure citizens could speak their opinions freely without the risk of persecution. Now it has become the soapbox for allowing people to incite violence, which is exactly what it does. Look at BLM for example. The more coverage it got, the worse the riots became.


Constantly shoving violence is anyone's face is going to cause violence to slowly trickle into people's thoughts. Almost like a subliminal message. Many of us are sane enough to rationalize, but for those who aren't this is all they need for justification.


A nut is a nut. They will find a reason to commit whatever crime they choose to commit. But by reducing how much of it we are exposed to there is a good probability that violence and violent tendencies will decrease.


If you want proof, there are a lot of studies that have been done on this. Here is the evidence you asked for:


"
There is now consensus that exposure to media violence is linked to actual violent behavior — a link found by many scholars to be on par with the correlation of exposure to secondhand smoke and the risk of lung cancer. In a meta-analysis of 217 studies published between 1957 and 1990, the psychologists George Comstock and Haejung Paik found that the short-term effect of exposure to media violence on actual physical violence against a person was moderate to large in strength.
Advertisement

Continue reading the main story
Mr. Comstock and Ms. Paik also conducted a meta-analysis of studies that looked at the correlation between habitual viewing of violent media and aggressive behavior at a point in time. They found 200 studies showing a moderate, positive relationship between watching television violence and physical aggression against another person.
Other studies have followed consumption of violent media and its behavioral effects throughout a person’s lifetime. In a meta-analysis of 42 studies involving nearly 5,000 participants, the psychologists Craig A. Anderson and Brad J. Bushman found a statistically significant small-to-moderate-strength relationship between watching violent media and acts of aggression or violence later in life.
In a study published in the journal Pediatrics this year, the researchers Lindsay A. Robertson, Helena M. McAnally and Robert J. Hancox showed that watching excessive amounts of TV as a child or adolescent — in which most of the content contains violence — was causally associated with antisocial behavior in early adulthood. (An excessive amount here means more than two hours per weekday.)"


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/op...hing.html?_r=0




http://www.apa.org/action/resources/...n/protect.aspx
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2016, 12:23 PM
 
32,320 posts, read 26,189,545 times
Reputation: 18950
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJboutit View Post
Maybe ban 5 to 10 guns high power guns that hold like 8+ bullets without reloading I am not talking about banning all guns

Maybe something like Carfax but for guns

You have to take a gun safety class before owning any gun when they put this into place anybody that has bought a gun in the last 5 to 10 has to take the safety class to
typical of gun grabbers, start with the high end stuff, and work your way down. and yes you are talking about banning all guns. do you really think we are stupid enough to think you would stop at just a few guns?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Floorist View Post
You do realize that the police say it is not uncommon for them to have to shoot a criminal multiple times to stop them. 8 may not be enough, especially if they are high. Someone had a post yesterday where the police shot a man 55 times before he stopped.
exactly right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2016, 12:24 PM
 
Location: Chicago Area
8,005 posts, read 4,182,708 times
Reputation: 3016
Quote:
Originally Posted by dman72 View Post
Virtually every idea in that article could be viewed as a violation of the 2nd amendment or 4th amendment.

Gun nuts are fine with the status quo. That's the bottom line. You can't limit their access to firearms in any way, including ammunition. You can't deny anyone the right to buy a gun without a court case.

Bottom line, you aren't allowed to do anything about anything because 10% of the hard core, militant, gun worshipping country wants it to be exactly as it is, of worse. And when you realize that a good chunk of that 5% are far right survivalist types waiting for a race war, it makes further sense.
Making the assumption that those who disagree with you actually want people to die -- that's just stupid. And throwing around made up stats isn't impressing anyone.

If only 10% of Americans wanted to retain gun rights, then the 2nd Amendment would have been repealed decades ago. All it takes is a majority vote in 38 states. Why do you suppose it hasn't happened yet? Reality is, there's more than 10% of Americans who believe in the right to bear arms. A lot more.

I'm pro-gun rights and yes I do in fact want to see a reduction and eventual elimination of violent crime. Gun ownership has been commonplace and constant throughout our nation's history. We're not Europe. There's lots of places where you're hours or possibly days away from law enforcement arriving to help. Even the quickest responding police forces are likely to arrive after you're already dead. The best deterrent to violent crime is to be able to bring lethal force to bear right away.

There's a reason that all of your recent mass shootings take place in Gun Free Zones. Disarming the victims ain't working.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2016, 12:26 PM
 
Location: Huntsville
5,414 posts, read 4,047,684 times
Reputation: 6180
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
typical of gun grabbers, start with the high end stuff, and work your way down. and yes you are talking about banning all guns. do you really think we are stupid enough to think you would stop at just a few guns?
Of course not......


In the beginning it would be great... but as criminals turn to the 5 shot revolvers and hunting rifles to commit violence there will be a call for a ban on those as well. Then once all guns are gone (if that were even possible) they would turn to knives. Then knives would be banned. Then criminals would turn to sticks and stones. Then it would become illegal to possess sticks and stones. Sounds silly, but that would be the cries that we would eventually hear.


The root cause is not the gun itself. It is an inanimate object until picked up and fired. It is the person standing behind it that is the issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:51 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top