Reducing Gun Violence
-
Sure, they can't take our guns. They just want to intimidate Americans into giving all of them up.
Or, tax them out of range of people to afford them.
And that is ALL GUNS, every gun.
Holder wasn't talking about "only assault weapons".
Some gun control, to them, is just a foot in the door.
They couldn't care less that it doesn't solve any violence problem.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2013/01/10/eric-holder-gun-owners-should-cower-shame-smokers
Sure, they can't take our guns. They just want to intimidate Americans into giving all of them up.
Or, tax them out of range of people to afford them.
And that is ALL GUNS, every gun.
Holder wasn't talking about "only assault weapons".
Some gun control, to them, is just a foot in the door.
They couldn't care less that it doesn't solve any violence problem.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2013/01/10/eric-holder-gun-owners-should-cower-shame-smokers
And what's the problem with that?
Oh yeah. Imaginary Hitler.
-
There is no quick fix to the problem.
The problem is the type of young man we are raising. That is the problem.
We have a generation of young men who feel left out and their only real emotion is anger.
How we change that?? We could go on for weeks as to what is causing it and how to solve it, but that is the problem.
There is no quick fix to the problem.
The problem is the type of young man we are raising. That is the problem.
We have a generation of young men who feel left out and their only real emotion is anger.
How we change that?? We could go on for weeks as to what is causing it and how to solve it, but that is the problem.
I don't feel left out and have more than one emotion... do... do I win?
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
Unfortunately heck, there is no real solution. The genie is out of the bottle as Steve says, and there is no way to put it back in.
There's lots of little steps that could be taken. Better background checks. Closing loopholes, making gun owners be insured, even databases of the mentally ill, like that French douchebag lapierre suggested.
Personally I'd like to see states tax and legislate the gun lobby out of power much like what they did to finally bring big tobacco to its knees. Did it stop everyone from smoking? It did not, but it worked very well I don't think anyone can deny that. Being a smoker has never been more difficult or unfashionable, or expensive.
Also if insurance came into play as a mandatory factor I think that could only be a good thing. Look how much mandatory car insurance changed automobiles. Gone are the days of big block engines and suicide doors. Now you have five star crash test safety ratings. The point is, once insurance got involved it can be conclusively proven steps were taken to make driving and owning a car far more safe.
I think if the pro gun nuts got it through their thick fucking heads that its actually impossible for anyone to take their replacement penises away from their grubby little hands and that legislation to make everyone a little safer does not equal imaginary Hitler putting you in a concentration camp we would be a lot closer to finding any solution.
Unfortunately heck, there is no real solution. The genie is out of the bottle as Steve says, and there is no way to put it back in.
There's lots of little steps that could be taken. Better background checks. Closing loopholes, making gun owners be insured, even databases of the mentally ill, like that French douchebag lapierre suggested.
Personally I'd like to see states tax and legislate the gun lobby out of power much like what they did to finally bring big tobacco to its knees. Did it stop everyone from smoking? It did not, but it worked very well I don't think anyone can deny that. Being a smoker has never been more difficult or unfashionable, or expensive.
Also if insurance came into play as a mandatory factor I think that could only be a good thing. Look how much mandatory car insurance changed automobiles. Gone are the days of big block engines and suicide doors. Now you have five star crash test safety ratings. The point is, once insurance got involved it can be conclusively proven steps were taken to make driving and owning a car far more safe.
I think if the pro gun nuts got it through their thick fucking heads that its actually impossible for anyone to take their replacement penises away from their grubby little hands and that legislation to make everyone a little safer does not equal imaginary Hitler putting you in a concentration camp we would be a lot closer to finding any solution.
Don't worry. I skipped over the other responses and went straight to this one.
I think this is all we're really left with: little steps that can be taken to try and minimize the violence. I agree it's like with cars: you're not going to eliminate cars or car accidents, but we've done a number of things to minimize the number of deaths - required air bags, seat belts, extra brake lights, etc. Question is, which one of those are going to work best, and which ones can pass?
After Sandy Hook, I'm not sure it's acceptable to say "Oh, well, what are you going to do?"
-
And yet, politically, the left will ignore a reasonable response - required security of owned guns.
That's the main idea I could come up with. But not one appraisal of that by the left.
The why is obvious. Because it doesn't fit their cowardly leftist narrative, heckbunkerwise.
Too bad. The attitudes of the left are so similar in affect in a way - to the "anti-war" crowd back in the Vietnam days.
For all their fake anguish, all they really did was to raise hell with any status quo for fun, regardless of the fact that
they actually caused more and more deaths with their irresponsibility.
Sick.
-
@king-ghoolie-lives said:
MAke prisons a living hell.
Take the locks off of all the doors. Take limits off of how crowded they can get. Remove the guards form inside the prison and put sharp shooters on the outside. Leave the exits to the prisons open and mow down anyone who tries to leave.
DOn't police inner jail rape and killings. Bring in food trucks each day and let the savages fend for themselves. Make prison a living hell and quit crying about prisoner rights. Crime will evaporate before you know it.
Right. Because in El Salvador, prisons are now totally empty because of these conditions. No more crime!
-
There is no quick fix to the problem.
The problem is the type of young man we are raising. That is the problem.
We have a generation of young men who feel left out and their only real emotion is anger.
How we change that?? We could go on for weeks as to what is causing it and how to solve it, but that is the problem.
I don't feel left out and have more than one emotion... do... do I win?
I don't feel left out and have more than one emotion... do... do I win?
Of course you don't. You're perfect.
The point Woody, is it is young men killing the people. It's our sons.....right, I know, you don't have a son.
We can be as reactionary as we want, but that doesn't solve the problem. It simply puts a coat of paint on it.
-
You are suggesting making liability insurance for gun owners. This is crazy. For one, criminals won't get it. Crazy people won't get it. They will still be able to get guns, easily. It will make the insurance companies happy I'm sure, because now they will be screwing over people with another product no one needs. I'm for stricter background checks, which would mean medical information for mental health issues such as manic depressive, etc. Also, opening up youthful offender backgrounds which are currently sealed after you hit age 18 I believe. Also, a 3 day waiting period wouldn't bother me. But I have to tell you, nothing is going to stop some crazy fool from walking into a school/mall/theater/airport, whatever and start mowing people down. Not unless you have the future police come and arrest people before the crime happens.
-
But back to the topic:
It's hard to say - hard to think like a criminal/loop-holer when you aren't one. I'm not really sure what would be a solution. What I do know is that nothing found in Feinstein's proposal would have prevented Sandy Hook. (or Aurora, or Columbine, etc)
Bans on mag size, weapon type, amount, etc. wouldn't really have an effect on volume of gun violence, imo. It would just shift the demographics of victim/criminal. The cat is already out of the bag, and we know (from endless data on prohibition of various vices) that criminalizing any vice just puts said vice in the wrong hands.
The "repeating" firearm has been around for well over 100 years and these mass killings have just been a phenomenon over the last 30-40 years. For me, the weapon type/size/caliber isn't the problem. So here is where I would focus my efforts. I think background checks don't necessarily need to be more extensive, but maybe a little more focused. I think many understand the trade of freedom for safety and it would apply here too. Your medical records don't remain as private anymore. Adderall, Ritalin, these scripts are a red flag. Psychiatrists should have some responsibility/culpability moving forward. They don't get to remain silent. Not to get all Alex Jonesy, but we are waaaaaay to big for our britches when it comes to what we think we know about neural pathways. Drugs for depression, anxiety, etc., only treat symptoms, and do not focus on cause. Which, to me, is dangerous when dealing with the mind. Despite being the same mechanism of action, there's a big difference in stopping a runny nose and targeting neural receptors.
This is a mental health issue, not a guns issue.
I watched a 30 min vid on Sandy Hook last night that is kind of intense. I need to dig around more to determine the validity of some of the things addressed in the film, but they are pretty scary if accurate.
Also, if you want to get in the mind of a clueless, deceitful member of congress, read this:
http://www.fieldandstream.com/forums/backlash-and-blowback/anti-gun-senator-shoots-intruder
-
As I mentioned before, old buddy. I agree with George Will who asks how much money are we willing to spend on programs that will have almost 0 effect? That's the bottom line. As you've said the vast majority of gun crime and murder is unrelated to the rare public massacres. I've heard nothing substantial from either side save for some political posturing. If it's at all possible let's keep in mind that the second Amendment is not now nor ever has been about deer hunting.
So we need to move off that point and admit to ourselves that the second Amendment really is out dated.
The handgun ban a couple decades ago was found to be unconstitutional. The vote? 5 to 4. Doesn't sound like it's written in stone.
Englands ban isless than 30 years old.
Then we might move on to how to curb the gun death epidemic. I do have some thoughts about some of the disingenuous rhetorical being bandied about but I'll get to that in another post. I believe first and foremost that if we are to make a dent in the tens if not hundreds of thousands of gun crimes there needs to be serious and mandatory sentences for crimes involving guns. And we need to enforce the laws we already have.
Just yesterday I read a story about some dirt ball in a neighboring community who had murdered 1 young woman and left another a vegetable. He had a criminal record involving illegal firearms. Had there been a mandatory 10 year sentence these women would be alive and healthy as we speak. On the other hand the attorney who got him back out on the street would have missed a paycheck.
So there's one step that will curb gun violence.
Strict mandatory sentences for committing a crime with a gun.
Tell me why you (as I assume you will) disagree.
WSS
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Meanwhile, here in Ohio, background checks have increased 34 percent since...
AR-15's are flying off the shelves.
And the 2nd Amendment isn't outdated, just like the 1st Amendment isn't outdated.
And yes, it is about deer hunting, my friend. Partly. It's about protection of your home, your family.
It's about putting food on the table during any hard times, country wide, or personal economic.
It's about that ability, across this country, to not be disarmed by any kind of tyrant who gets into power,
because there are too many of us with guns. It''s about freedom, and being safe in our homes.
Say, Obamao and co. can do a "bailout" and send money to every gun owner to buy a high quality
Liberty safe for their guns. Just use the money being sent to Egypt and ObaMao's muslim brotherhood buddies.
-
The left loves to use problems as currency. They can make stupid promises, for votes, and split.
Wail about the poor.
Well, the poor stayed poor during the Carter wailing about the poor, the Clinton wailing about the poor, all eight years,
and during Obamao's wailing about the poor. It was never about the poor. They simply lied.
It was about gaining personal wealth, fame, and political power. And the poor are still poor.
Yeah, let's require criminals buy gun crime liability insurance. dang, that's stupid.
And heck is worse than that. geez.
-
If we can agree on the premise that in general, laws penalize the law-abiding, not the law-breaking, we could have an honest discourse over this issue (which I believe we are in this thread). 'Penalize' can be in the form of a mere annoyance, to monetary or safety problems for those who abide by the law. I'm not so sure requiring insurance for firearm owners will have a worthwhile effect (if we are looking to lower gun violence).
I posted a video in another thread by a guy going by "Amidst the noise" or something like that on youtube/twitter and he makes some really good points. Violent crime (all forms) in the US is on the decline and has been for some time. Yet we are at the top of the list when it comes to per capita handgun ownership. There is a strong correlation there. LaPierre and others like to imply causation, just as Feinstein and the other fools manipulate data to serve the counter to that argument and also imply causation.
Here it is again ICYMI:
Sure, luck means a lot in football. Not having a good quarterback is bad luck. -Don Shula -
Pretty smart guy to sum it up like that, after presenting information so clearly.
-
As I mentioned before, old buddy. I agree with George Will who asks how much money are we willing to spend on programs that will have almost 0 effect? That's the bottom line. As you've said the vast majority of gun crime and murder is unrelated to the rare public massacres. I've heard nothing substantial from either side save for some political posturing. If it's at all possible let's keep in mind that the second Amendment is not now nor ever has been about deer hunting.
So we need to move off that point and admit to ourselves that the second Amendment really is out dated.
The handgun ban a couple decades ago was found to be unconstitutional. The vote? 5 to 4. Doesn't sound like it's written in stone.
Englands ban isless than 30 years old.
Then we might move on to how to curb the gun death epidemic. I do have some thoughts about some of the disingenuous rhetorical being bandied about but I'll get to that in another post. I believe first and foremost that if we are to make a dent in the tens if not hundreds of thousands of gun crimes there needs to be serious and mandatory sentences for crimes involving guns. And we need to enforce the laws we already have.
Just yesterday I read a story about some dirt ball in a neighboring community who had murdered 1 young woman and left another a vegetable. He had a criminal record involving illegal firearms. Had there been a mandatory 10 year sentence these women would be alive and healthy as we speak. On the other hand the attorney who got him back out on the street would have missed a paycheck.
So there's one step that will curb gun violence.
Strict mandatory sentences for committing a crime with a gun.
Tell me why you (as I assume you will) disagree.
WSS
WSS
As I mentioned before, old buddy. I agree with George Will who asks how much money are we willing to spend on programs that will have almost 0 effect? That's the bottom line. As you've said the vast majority of gun crime and murder is unrelated to the rare public massacres. I've heard nothing substantial from either side save for some political posturing. If it's at all possible let's keep in mind that the second Amendment is not now nor ever has been about deer hunting.
So we need to move off that point and admit to ourselves that the second Amendment really is out dated.
The handgun ban a couple decades ago was found to be unconstitutional. The vote? 5 to 4. Doesn't sound like it's written in stone.
Englands ban isless than 30 years old.
Then we might move on to how to curb the gun death epidemic. I do have some thoughts about some of the disingenuous rhetorical being bandied about but I'll get to that in another post. I believe first and foremost that if we are to make a dent in the tens if not hundreds of thousands of gun crimes there needs to be serious and mandatory sentences for crimes involving guns. And we need to enforce the laws we already have.
Just yesterday I read a story about some dirt ball in a neighboring community who had murdered 1 young woman and left another a vegetable. He had a criminal record involving illegal firearms. Had there been a mandatory 10 year sentence these women would be alive and healthy as we speak. On the other hand the attorney who got him back out on the street would have missed a paycheck.
So there's one step that will curb gun violence.
Strict mandatory sentences for committing a crime with a gun.
Tell me why you (as I assume you will) disagree.
WSS
I don't necessarily, but this is not a new idea. I'd look into what Richmond did in the 90s in an effort to reduce gun crime, which involved mandatory sentences and became a template for lots of other cities. I think it was called Project Exile, or something like that.
-
One thing that peeves me here is that the debate is about gun control. A lot of people, particularly on the right, call that banning guns in their mind. There is no banning guns. Instead let's look for a way to make everyone safer. It happened with cars, and tobacco. No reason it couldn't happen for guns. And if it makes you guys have to pay more taxes and have to prove insurance before a gun sale so be it. Too bad.
If you Had to prove insurance, if somebody were financially liable you'd better believe there would be a mental health exam you had to pass. And whether or not you guys like to admit it or not, all these massacres of late have been committed by legal owners of registered firearms. Not ex cons with illegal guns. Adam Lanza was the son of the legal owner whose gross negligence cost 20 children and 6 women their lives.
This is my focus and its better than the gun control debate which is a dead end. How to force responsibility on legal gun owners, and keep them from being legally obtained by mentally ill people with no criminal histories.
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind... -
I agree with your last sentence completely.
I don't expect magazine size restrictions or assault weapons bans to do much of anything. They might be worth doing, and might make some small difference, but they're hardly game changers. But I think all we're talking about is stuff that affects things on the margins.
Stiffer penalties for gun owners whose weapons fall into the hands of other people who use them for crimes. If you're in a home with someone who is mentally ill, you should be forced to have a real conversation with yourself about how to lock up your guns or not have them at all.
A more extensive system of background checks to try and do a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill. This is going to be pretty complicated work, but likely worth more effort than an assault weapons ban with holes.
As for mass killings, I think in America you can do less about that than every day gun crime. If someone is nuts and is intent on killing lots of people it's extremely hard to deter them, or stop them. Which isn't to say you shouldn't try to figure out ways to try, but it's probably hard to do.
-
Also, if a local school board decides that keeping an armed guard in the school somewhere is something they want to do, I think that's fine for them to choose to do that. Does it take on an additional risk, and increase the likelihood of an accident or incident? Sure. But if they're willing to accept that risk for the increased security it provides I think that's perfectly fine for them to decide that. I don't get this notion that having armed response is somehow useless.
What I wouldn't think is worthwhile would be to make this national policy for every school in the country like the NRA wants to do (so that we talk about something other than guns). We don't need a nationwide version of the TSA for every school in the country.
If local school boards want to do that, fine with me. And good luck, because it's going to be sad when that policy leads to problems and incidents too, probably after some school board somewhere unknowingly hires the wrong person for the job.
-
Also, if a local school board decides that keeping an armed guard in the school somewhere is something they want to do, I think that's fine for them to choose to do that. Does it take on an additional risk, and increase the likelihood of an accident or incident? Sure. But if they're willing to accept that risk for the increased security it provides I think that's perfectly fine for them to decide that. I don't get this notion that having armed response is somehow useless.
What I wouldn't think is worthwhile would be to make this national policy for every school in the country like the NRA wants to do (so that we talk about something other than guns). We don't need a nationwide version of the TSA for every school in the country.
If local school boards want to do that, fine with me. And good luck, because it's going to be sad when that policy leads to problems and incidents too, probably after some school board somewhere unknowingly hires the wrong person for the job.
Also, if a local school board decides that keeping an armed guard in the school somewhere is something they want to do, I think that's fine for them to choose to do that. Does it take on an additional risk, and increase the likelihood of an accident or incident? Sure. But if they're willing to accept that risk for the increased security it provides I think that's perfectly fine for them to decide that. I don't get this notion that having armed response is somehow useless.
What I wouldn't think is worthwhile would be to make this national policy for every school in the country like the NRA wants to do (so that we talk about something other than guns). We don't need a nationwide version of the TSA for every school in the country.
If local school boards want to do that, fine with. me. And good luck, because it's going to be sad when that policy leads to problems and incidents too, probably after some school board somewhere unknowingly hires the wrong person for the job.
The weird dystopian future that we actually live in makes it so that an appalling notion of posting armed guards at elementary schools seems like a rational solution. But what the N.R.A. fails to mention is that these shootings also happen at shopping malls, movie theatres, train stations, cafeterias, fast food resteraunts. Are we going to post an armed guard EVERYWHERE? I mean if schools want to have a well equipped and trained liscensed and bonded guard I'm all for that, but to scratch the surface of this problem you're going to have to go down the rabbit hole a little deeper. It's going to have to be a comprehensive mental health overhaul combined with new standards for gun ownership. Banning guns is a meaningless, divisive concept. It won't happen it can't happen.
-
Heck you do realize that stiffer penalties for honest gun owners who allow their weapons to fall into the wrong hands isn't that much of a big deal right?
It's not useless, mind you. It may well serve to make people who have pistols lying around the house lock them up.
And you do realize you are back to talking about only the tiny percentage of public massacres correct, dot gun violence in general?
Remember the gun the kid used at Sandy Hook was stolen from his mother.
I don't suppose filing charges posthumously would be of great help.
I'm talking mandatory 10 years for anyone convicted of a crime with a gun.
I think that would be a deterrent in a lot of street crime which is the biggest number.
WSS
-
And a question for the Liberals as well as the privacy Obsessed conservatives.
I have absolutely no problem with an in depth psychological background check for someone who wants to buy a weapon. Fine with me.
Just curious however, where do you draw the line? Is anyone who has ever been prescribed an anti depressant already disqualified?
But don't forget you guys freak out when I mention having DNA on file for every US citizen.
Hell we can't even get a nationwide database for medical procedures prescription drugs and psychological testing.
Will you sit still for a psychological profile For each and every citizen on file somewhere?
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login