Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
I always forget the singular focus typically encountered in these gun threads, typically by the usual characters, but with all due respect, that article touches on a good deal more than magazine size, much that I would think provides more the balance of consideration and analysis that many gun enthusiasts even promote, the more reasonable gun enthusiasts anyway. For starters, here's what the article offerred for consideration about magazine size that is not exactly the panacea gun enthusiasts like to suggest gun control advocates think it is.
"A ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines might also make some difference to the lethality of mass shootings. The best rough estimate for a long-term impact of the ban, researcher Chris Koper suggested, might be a 1% reduction in shootings, or 650 fewer people shot per year. That effect would only begin to be seen after many years, once the US’s existing stock of large capacity magazines is used up. From a public health perspective, even a marginal reduction could be worth it, Koper argued, since the medical and social cost of a single gunshot injury is substantial."
True or not to whatever extent, as I have commented many times, I have little optimism there is any satisfying way to reduce gun violence in America and certainly not without an entire host of efforts combined, most of which do NOT have anything to do with removing guns from the hands of law-abiding Americans.
|
Remove the emotion from it and see it logically You will have a satisfying way to reduce "gun violence"
I addressed one way in doing just that. Odd you nor others have seriously challenged what I had proposed. Especially when I lay the plan on the table with mentioning I wont address hyperbole.
What do I get?
*crickets*
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Not sure you read the article beyond the headline or actually gave it any real consideration. Can't say I'm surprised, but lots of "freaks" are addressing this issue as well. Also noted in the same article...
Urban, gang-related violence: the Boston ceasefire strategy
Chicago, Oakland, New Orleans, Detroit: decades of gun violence have had a devastating impact on some of the country’s economically struggling neighborhoods.
The violence, rooted in segregation, unemployment, mass incarceration, and the “war on drugs”, can seem like a hopeless and intractable problem. But decades of justice department-funded research has identified several promising strategies for reducing gun violence – not over the long term, but immediately, in a matter of months.
Cities that have done in-depth analyses of their gun violence problem have found something surprising: the majority of violence is driven by a very small number of young men. In Oakland, for instance, just 1,000 members of a few active street groups were responsible for most of the city’s homicides. The violence was not fueled by turf wars or drug business, for the most part, but by long-running feuds and arguments among loose groups of young men engaged in other illegal activities.
Communicating directly with these young men – and offering both assistance and intense law enforcement attention – led to an immediate drop in violence. This “ceasefire” or “focused deterrence” strategy, first launched in Boston in 1996, requires coordination between police departments, prosecutors and community members in the neighborhoods most affected by violence.
|
And what plan specifically curtails their activities?
That is the problem with "gun control" What applies to the bad seed must apply to all in the name and sake of being fair? No. Chicago Oakland NOLA Detroit, Those are their problems to address. And it goes on neglected just like the school shootings.
I propose a fix I catch hell.
Others have proposed a fix. They catch hell.
It tells me every time I engage in these debates, there is no genuine concern by the side that wants to ban. They just want to ban, curtail, and subjectively interpret and dictate to others on the basis of what goes on in the cities and suburbs, and what goes on in isolated incidents.
School shootings-No deterrence present.
Cities-No deterrence present. You could put a cop on every street corner in those cities. They would become targets. That wouldn't solve anything.
Shot Spotter. Again. Its a monitoring device, and an expensive one to use. Again. NO deterrent present. Wait until folks figure out how to trigger it by slapping 2 bricks together in an alley way...
The approach I find from the left and the anti gun crowd is much the same in everything else.
Monitor it. Thats all they want to do is Monitor.
Do not give others the right to defend themselves.
Make them dependent upon the police to ensure their safety. Seconds matter. Help is only minutes away.
Demonize the implement to create an allure. Also to create more tensions between left and right or pro vs anti.
Skip over the incentive, the motive, and the individuals reasons for doing such heinous activities. Its the guns fault...
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Let's be honest, shall we? The opportunity to go on about guns like this for gun enthusiasts is perhaps second only to the love of shooting them. The want to intelligently and rationally consider the pros/cons of gun control in an objective manner (without all the usual childish insults) pales in comparison.
That said, there are SOME gun enthusiasts who are able to have an intelligent adult conversation about this subject just like SOME can generally talk politics in the same way. Just a little too rare in this forum to waste too much time trying is all...
|
Intelligent mature conversation. Pfft. Not with the likes that have commented continuously in these threads with knee jerk responses. There is no communicating with them. Fact be damned. Look at the arguing had between myself and lvmensch.
Wants to ban the AR15 in one breath for having no legitimate purpose other than to kill as many people as possible...
Ignores the statistics doesnt even know what the definition of statistics Is to begin with, makes the outlandish claim that there has to be some sort of benefit with the deaths that occur to justify the rifles existence?
Again skip over the fact a human element existed to control and manipulate the weapon... Its the weapon. The inanimate object solely or majorly responsible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
There's that circle I'm talking about, and considering you are one of the biggest offenders unable to move on with something a bit more substantive, more circling it is! In fact here it seems the suggestion we go backwards instead.
From bad to worse but also not altogether atypical of these gun threads to nowhere...
|
Well, we have tried it in the anti gunners way for years. Multiple times.
Clintons AWB did not reduce or curtail or stop anything. Columbine still happened. 2 sawed off shotguns and an intratec9 pistol.
The ban. The limit. The regulation. The curtailing of rights. Does not work. Does not reduce. Does not Stop.
Having a deterrence does.
We once had a common agreement on responsible gun owners.
When liberals took the approach of being proactive in the school about safe sex, there was a decline in teen pregnancy from 1990-2014. Decline in teenage pregnancy, decline in teenage abortion, decline in STD rates among teens too.
Now the numbers of kids finding weapons and injuring or offing themselves and others, is a tiny fraction of those who have fallen.
If the goal is to have responsible gun owners. Reduce the occurrences of these events and tragedies from happening... Why not teach responsible manners in school like with safe sex?
Its a legitimate question. Why are firearms demonized and the mere suggestion of introducing a program or class to address the elephant in the room met with such vehement opposition?
Could it be a political agenda would lose relevancy as it loses victims bodies to stand on top of to grandstand on behalf of?
I believe so. As insulting as that is and tacky and brutal that is, can't fault me for being honest with my opinion generated from an observation...
I honestly believe if there were guns everywhere and drastically reduced crimes/accidents/negligent occurrences, democrats would not have something to present to their voting base.
The would lose relevancy.
I'm convinced of it.
Prove me wrong.
Firearms go back in the classroom.
Children are taught safe practices and methods along with laws. Let them know how much they risk and stand to lose for being an Ahole and stupid with a firearm.
Allow Teachers and school faculty to exercise their 2nd amendment rights to keep and bear arms to have the means of defense to protect the students and themselves.
Want specifics on how I would address it? Fine I would list and address every concern conceivable. But I will not engage in hyperbolic rhetoric, doomsday prophecies, and ridiculous what Ifs.
Basics of the above.
1. Expedite their concealed carry permit. Teachers can not hold a license to teach while holding a felony charge. Just do the finger printing the passport ID and turn around in a quicker fashion to get them their permit/license following their state guidelines. If their state even requires a CCW.
2. Train during summer break. Train right there in the class room with simunition rounds with sheriffs dept/swat/law enforcement and private and volunteer trainers. I would volunteer to take part in training the faculty. Starting with the basic principles and go right on up to force on force with simulating an active shooter. You get the bang, the concussion as close as the real thing as possible.
3. Help to hone through what worked, what didn't work and how to do improve.
4. Want smart gun tech so a teachers weapon can not be lifted by a crazed student? Fine we can do that.
5. Want a safe or lockable and readily accessible container for the weapon? Fine we can do that too.
6. Want a budget for what it would cost? I can come up with it. For the simunition rounds, the weapons, the cost of a container/smart gun tech.
Do not counter with the kids will die in droves. A teacher will snap and kill all the kids. I won't engage in hyperbole.
Inner cities and such...
That's a separate problem and the outline to address that is listed in that article. Yet... Mayors are not coordinating efforts to address it. So I will.
Want the shootings to stop in your big cities and urban areas?
Perhaps maybe lower taxes to attract businesses to hire the locals. That way they are not turning to criminal enterprise to float themselves and their families. Provide an opportunity for gods sake!
If its true that this isnt "gang" warfare but just some confused young men with a grudge... Speak to them. Show them the error in their ways. Provide them with a positive figure to look up to. Provide them with an alternative than You scuffed my shoe? I shoot you fool! Or you stole my girl, I steal your life! If true that young men are killing each other due to rivalry and petty instances leading to a big violent grudge... Then perhaps address the incentives there that exist that promote this crap.
The way the article cites it, it seems more a cultural thing than a legitimate crime thing... Insinuating live by the sword, die by it...
Yet...
You look at the age group. Say 17-24 urban environment and 17-24 rural environment.
How is it the rural kids aren't offing themselves in record numbers?
Is it
1. Lack of single parent house holds?
2. Growing up with responsible parents?
3. Educated in proper and responsible practices with a firearm?
4. Know the act of threatening to do harm with, or actually doing harm with, is a crime with a hefty punishment and is not worth it?
What separates the urban kids from the rural kids?
For the concept of guns=death... How is it Billy Bob in rural areas doesn't grab his gun when disrespected? Yet... Hard Street Harold can put a hole in your face for "dissing" him in some fashion?
If that is the angle the report wants to run with... Its just misguided youth who turn to violence in inner cities and rack up the body count over grudges and such...
At least there was an acknowledgement of Yeah, you know what... There is something more to it than guns... And that, I can respect...
Solely the gun? Now you're being silly...
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.
