Reducing Gun Violence
-
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
-
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.
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.
This is an absolute lie. Please stop doing this if you want to be taken seriously. Lanza stole the weapons. He was not of legal age to own them, they were not registered to him, and he took them without permission. 3 Felonies. Hard to call that "legal" unless you're an emotional shipwreck.
-
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.
This is an absolute lie. Please stop doing this if you want to be taken seriously. Lanza stole the weapons. He was not of legal age to own them, they were not registered to him, and he took them without permission. 3 Felonies. Hard to call that "legal" unless you're an emotional shipwreck.
This is an absolute lie. Please stop doing this if you want to be taken seriously. Lanza stole the weapons. He was not of legal age to own them, they were not registered to him, and he took them without permission. 3 Felonies. Hard to call that "legal" unless you're an emotional shipwreck.
You should learn to read, doctor. Specifically two lines later. If you can't read how can I take you seriously?
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.
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.
Yes.
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.
Fine with this as well. All of my weapons are locked up.
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.
Completely fine with this as well, as I suggested. Not only should the person receiving the ritalin Rx have a red flag in their "file" but the parent(s) and prescribing Doctor ought to have a red flag as well. As to what the red flag means or demonstrates, that's another conversation.
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.
Agreed.
-
This is an absolute lie. Please stop doing this if you want to be taken seriously. Lanza stole the weapons. He was not of legal age to own them, they were not registered to him, and he took them without permission. 3 Felonies. Hard to call that "legal" unless you're an emotional shipwreck.
You should learn to read, doctor. Specifically two lines later. If you can't read how can I take you seriously?
You should learn to read, doctor. Specifically two lines later. If you can't read how can I take you seriously?
I think that's on you, buck. What you're writing, and what I think you want to write are two separate things. Work on that.
massacres of late have been committed by legal owners of registered firearms.
Lanza's mother didn't kill anyone.
Edit:
Holmes bought his weapons via loopholes. Online sales are supposed to be sold by FFL dealers to FFL dealers only. The onus is on both the seller and purchaser to make sure that happens. It's illegal to not follow through with it. But not always caught. Just like speeding. Or drunk driving. Both of which kill children.
-
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
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
I've already said a couple times that these are efforts to change things at the margins. As for the dead mother, the point of the legislation would be to force people like that to consider what might happen to them if their guns fall into the wrong hands, and to make sure they don't. This doesn't necessarily prevent Sandy Hook, but if that woman kept her guns in a safe that only she knew the combination to Lanza would have had to get his guns somewhere else. Problem is, he probably wouldn't have had a hard time doing that either.
These aren't ideas geared to stop another Sandy Hook. They're ideas geared toward stopping gun violence in general. Your idea for mandatory sentencing for gun crimes is fine. I'm just telling you that it's not new.
-
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
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
I have no idea how a system like this would work. It's above my pay grade. I suspect this is what's been discussed over the last few weeks, devising a system of background checks that's more useful than the one we have now, which isn't very useful, and misses about 40% of gun sales.
-
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:
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:
Leg, he's not controlling for gun crime here, only violent crime. I don't think he's making a very good argument. The correct comparison wouldn't be the one he's making. If he wants to make any conclusions about gun crime, then look at the numbers of gun crimes, not violent crimes, which include simple assaults, rapes, robberies, etc.
England, of course, has very low rates of gun crime. Japan has almost no gun crime at all. We have extremely high rate of gun crime, whether or not it's lessened in the past 20 years. He doesn't seem to want to point this out.
-
I think he spelled out violent crime vs gun crime fairly succinctly.
-
Look at this table:
www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
Every type of homicide with any kind of firearm is on the decline, and has been (table goes back to 2007).
-
Look at this table:
www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
Every type of homicide with any kind of firearm is on the decline, and has been (table goes back to 2007).
Look at this table:
www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
Every type of homicide with any kind of firearm is on the decline, and has been (table goes back to 2007).
Except for mass shootings in which 16 happened in 2012 for an average of 1.3 per month the highest total in any year ever. How is that kind of homicide with any type of firearm going down?
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... -
And a kid taking an inappropriately secured firearm which has been made available to him by his guardian is theft, technically, but that's only a weak diversonary tactic to avoid acknowledging that through gross negligence the gun's legal owner is directly responsible for allowing her son access to a weapon that allowed him to murder 20 helpless children in minutes. While trying to skirt the issue you literally could not be making a better case for the reform of the standards of gun ownership.
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... -
Look at this table:
www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
Every type of homicide with any kind of firearm is on the decline, and has been (table goes back to 2007).
Except for mass shootings in which 16 happened in 2012 for an average of 1.3 per month the highest total in any year ever. How is that kind of homicide with any type of firearm going down?
Except for mass shootings in which 16 happened in 2012 for an average of 1.3 per month the highest total in any year ever. How is that kind of homicide with any type of firearm going down?
So, you didn't look at the table? It stopped at 2011.
Where are you getting your figure of 16 shootings in 2012? I have data that incorporates all of the 2010's setting that # at 14 (for the entire 3 years).
Mass Public Shootings per Decade
1900s : zero
1910s: 2
1920s: 2
1930s: 9
1940s: 8
1950s: 1
1960s: 6
1970s: 13
1980s: 32
1990s: 42
2000s: 28
2010s (three years): 14
Brady Bill signed into law.
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