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.
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,355 posts, read 8,583,796 times
Reputation: 16698
Advertisements
I’m going to add that most suggested gun laws will not change anything except to make anti gun folks feel better.
Obviously evaluating someone’s mental health would go a long way. The problem is many people are concerned with individual rights.
The guy that killed people in Santa Barbara a few years back had mental issues. His own parents tried to get the police to arrest him or put him in some kind of custody so that he did not fulfill his manifesto. The police did not because they were afraid they would be sued for infringing on his personal rights. And by the way it wasn’t just a gun, he tried to run people over with his BMW as well as stabbing people.
Crazy people will find a way to harm others if they can’t get a gun.
How about the Boston marathon bomber. No guns were used there.
Mass shootings are the act of criminally violent sociopaths. We are not talking about the run-of-the-mill violent crime, the armed robberies and murders for hire. These cannot be prevented by gun control, it's true. But the vast majority of gun deaths happen in this country in much less dramatic ways. We are talking about the tragic, the accidental, the passionate.
Keeping guns out of the hands of people who are deranged or irresponsible requires keeping guns out of more peoples' hands, period. It's not possible to screen for a possible future toddler visiting and getting curious, but perhaps it's possible to make it less likely that toddler will visit a home with a gun in the first place. And less likely that the toddler will find a gun in a glove compartment or purse because of a parent's paranoia.
The idea that guns and target shooting are a "fun hobby that parents and children can do together" is what enabled the Sandy Hook shooter. Tragedies happen all the time that aren't mass shootings. Teenagers "playing" kill one another. Even controlled environments with experts present are not immune: An instructor was killed by his student, a young girl who should never have been near a gun--a man is dead, and that girl's life is forever altered. For what? But cultural change can happen if the public is educated and leaders truly care about public health and safety.
Cigarette smoking is less and less common. Why? Because of the health facts we are shown every day, and because of new regulations about how and where they can be used and by whom. They're being kept out of social situations and workplaces. Research about health consequences proved that smoking is dangerous, second-hand smoking is dangerous, and smoking in the workplace creates unsafe work environments. So now those things are regulated--yet you can still buy cigarettes and smoke them in isolated places so others can avoid contact. The culture has been altered for the better. Fewer and fewer kids are picking up the habit because there are fewer and fewer households where that behavior is modeled. In just a couple of generations it's become rare to find kids who smoke at all.
Drinking and driving has a similar story. It used to be accepted, common. Then our attention was turned through great effort to the terrible costs, and the law caught up. And now having a designated driver is something our kids have internalized to be normal, needed, and they are safer.
Changing the culture is not going to happen quickly, that's for sure. And right now it seems to be going in the wrong direction. Open carry is spreading and that is going to lead to more carnage. Open carry means open temptation for those who particularly should never be near guns--those who can't see any other way to settle a grievance, the drunk, the unhinged, the unstable. Why put guns literally in their line of sight?
A country with fewer guns is a safer country, there is no way to argue that away. If we all agree we want a safer country, let's actively look for ways to get there.
Last edited by Sanderling; 07-16-2022 at 01:29 PM..
...Crazy people will find a way to harm others if they can’t get a gun...
Yup - this goes back to what I mentioned in my first post on this thread: "How do you shape policy so that they (the people intent on doing violence) cannot do certain things, without depriving the entire population of those things?"
I lean towards marking out those people who have proven themselves to have violent tendencies (i.e. already convicted of violent crimes, or are subject to a red-flag), and inconveniencing them (e.g. depriving them of rights), as opposed to inconveniencing the law-abiding.
Along those lines, I don't think I would have any issue with marking their status on government-issued IDs (either by color-codes or some other means). Some potential categories could be convicted of a violent crime, sex offender, red-flagged for violent tendencies, multiple DUIs; I'm certain there are others I haven't thought of. In day-to-day life, this would have no effect on such individuals, but under certain circumstances, businesses or others could use this as a screening tool ("sorry - you're not allowed to purchase this object - you've shown yourself to be incapable of using such an object responsibly"..."no, sorry, you cannot work in our daycare center - we don't allow someone convicted of raping children to be employed here"..."sorry, I cannot serve you alcohol - you are incapable of drinking responsibly"...etc.).
I'll just repeat the same argument I always have. The facts are easily verifiable by checking national health statistics.
The "gun problem" is twofold. It's a gang problem and a mental health problem. Fully half of all deaths by guns are the results of gang activity. The other half are depressed people who use their guns to commit suicide. People need to be cognizant of this fact because we've had a lot of political misdirection about who is using guns and why.
Both of these problems could be addressed without ever focusing on the weapons themselves. Clean up the big business of gangs and all the corruption that helps support them.
Make less tragic assisted suicide services available.
It's so stoopid to have to say this but criminals don't obey the law. What part of that don't people get?.
I'll just repeat the same argument I always have. The facts are easily verifiable by checking national health statistics.
The "gun problem" is twofold. It's a gang problem and a mental health problem. Fully half of all deaths by guns are the results of gang activity. The other half are depressed people who use their guns to commit suicide. People need to be cognizant of this fact because we've had a lot of political misdirection about who is using guns and why.
Both of these problems could be addressed without ever focusing on the weapons themselves. Clean up the big business of gangs and all the corruption that helps support them.
Make less tragic assisted suicide services available.
It's so stoopid to have to say this but criminals don't obey the law. What part of that don't people get?.
Couldn't agree more with what you said! Address the problems at the source and stop blaming everything that happens on "gun violence". Why not focus on what is causing the increase of "violence"? What has changed from the day that every pickup truck had a gun rack in the back window with two high powered rifles in plain sight........with the doors unlocked...... and in many cases parked in the high school parking lot?
Guns haven't changed anywhere near as much as people have. I doubt removing guns would have much effect, if any, with most of these people that are intent on inflicting violence on others. Timothy McVeigh didn't use a gun, suicide bombers don't use guns, the person plowing through pedestrians with a car doesn't use a gun, and yet their brand of violence is quite effective if not more effective than guns are. The argument that "if that person didn't have access to an AK-47 this tragedy would never have happened" cannot be proven. A person intent on inflicting violence on others WILL inflict that violence by any means possible.
As a gun owner, not user, personal protection. I see nothing "wrong" with having to register your weapon, besides it being a slight pain in the ass. What I worry about is another taxation once we have done this. If you want to fall back on- its a right- that was during 1791, a time of Militia being used as armed protection. Things have changed a bit.
If a person is mentally unsound & wishes to hurt other people, I think they will find a way. No "gun control" will stop this, because they are driven by thier thoughts and will not get help. I dont know if that is even a consideration when you are that mentally ill.
As a gun owner, not user, personal protection. I see nothing "wrong" with having to register your weapon, besides it being a slight pain in the ass. What I worry about is another taxation once we have done this. If you want to fall back on- its a right- that was during 1791, a time of Militia being used as armed protection. Things have changed a bit.
If a person is mentally unsound & wishes to hurt other people, I think they will find a way. No "gun control" will stop this, because they are driven by thier thoughts and will not get help. I dont know if that is even a consideration when you are that mentally ill.
The issue with registration is that it gives the Government a database of who owns what firearms.
As long as there are politicians who want to ban/outlaw firearms of anysort, then such a database should not exist (as it gives them a ready-made list of whose house to raid when it comes time to confiscate tghe newly-outlawed weapon.
The "weapon of choice" for criminals, at least according to the media and certain politicians, is constantly changing. At some point there is usually a call to ban said "weapon of choice". It used to be "Saturday Night Specials", meaning inexpensive handguns. Then it became "Plastic Guns", meaning Glocks (at the time; now pretty much every firearm manufacturer makes polymer framed handguns of some sort). Then it became "assault-style weapons"...which morphed into "assault weapons". For a short while, it was "sniper rifles". My point being - the media and certain politicians will inevitably at some point demonize pretty much every possible firearm, and probably attempt to ban said firearm as well.
Now, I am for some form of registration - of convicted criminals, and possibly red-flagged individuals. (see my previous idea of marking their Government-issued IDs with their status.
For that matter, it wasn't that long ago that California had a "three strikes" law. I'd bring that back (and would hope it would be nationwide, but that's up to each State), but with a change: "two strikes" should be more than enough to decide that a particular individual doesn't belong roaming around in society.
While there were 12,892 handgun/firearm not specified deaths, for rifles which would include AR-15s and other black rifles, there were 455, basically the same as the 393 killed by blunt objects such as baseball bats, but below the 662 killed by hands, feet, etc. and far below the 1739 killed by knives.
I guess you'll want to ban all them too?
I don't want to ban anything. Even guns. I want to heavily reduce the amount of guns, the killing power of the legal guns (less rifles), and most importantly, who exactly has them (far less unstable people), and how easy it is for Johnny next door to obtain these deadly instruments. As in, I think it should be very difficult, with a stringent licensing approval process, for civilians to obtain guns. And even harder to get anything that can kill as many people that quickly, like the AR-15's. Even with the 2A in place (which as I said, I support keeping), I would argue all of that is not necessarily unconstitutional. It's a very misunderstood and often ludicrously interpreted constitutional amendment, I would argue.
Maybe the confusion could be from the fact that I was asked earlier in this thread to name a gun control policy that would work to reduce gun violence, and I responded that banning guns outright, definitely would. I didn't say I want that, but we should approach that.
And yes, anything can be misused and abused. You can kill somebody with any tool, or no tool. That has zero to do with the gun control argument or whether we should have gun control. Of course we're not going to ban cutting knives.
As I said earlier in this thread, a mass shooting isn't an example of a gun being misused. That's exactly what the thing was designed for. I mean, it's not a paper weight. It was designed for the purpose of shooting people. Whereas, a kitchen knife is a tool for cutting food. So, you know, I'm honestly so tired of hearing, "what about baseball bat control, huh?"
Could the guy in Las Vegas in 2017 have killed 61 people from a window in less than 10 minutes, with a baseball bat? I mean, can we finally stop with that whole, really tired line of argument? It's ridiculous. Yes, absolutely of course you can harm people, in all kinds of other ways. We're specifically talking about guns, the horrible things that they uniquely can do (what they're designed to do), and how we can reduce that happening, with actual effective national policies.
Quote:
If you were actually a libertarian, you'd be familiar with the quote, "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)
I'm very familiar with that particular quote, but I don't see how it has anything to do with my desire to have fewer angry kids, gun down 6 year old's? I mean, would not Benjamin Franklin want that, too?
Should you be allowed to have anthrax? Should your neighbor be allowed to have a nuclear bomb in their garage, for self defense? Should we all just have guns constantly loaded and pointing at each other's heads, and god forbid your pickup truck goes over a speed bump? Of course not. Because a basic environment of safety is just as important as liberty in society, in fact it's a critically important foundation of liberty itself. This NRA fantasyland is like the opposite of liberty, and so many people are duped into thinking that this whole status quo represents optimal "liberty".
Quote:
Yes, firearms should be kept out of the hands of the criminally insane, but punishing 80 million law abiding citizens to do it flies in the face of being a supporter of personal liberty.
Like the thread says, gun control is a necessary evil, and we need to find a balance. A much better balance than the unacceptable status quo.
It’s much harder to kill large numbers of people with other weapons if guns aren’t available. Murders have declined in countries with strict gun laws. Let’s face it if our government turned on it’s citizens people that are armed will be no match for the military. Things have changed a lot since this country came into being. Also it bears repeating since many people keep repeating the lie that mentally ill people are doing most of the killings. This has Never been true!!
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.
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.
