Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Gun Violence and how to address it

Options
  • 20-01-2020 8:14pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,022 ✭✭✭


    You're just pushing a false narrative so you can malign those who disagree with you. This is something the left does constantly with Trump and those who voted for him. Suggest that he, and those who voted for him, are racist and that 'Make America Great' again is/was really about making America white again. It's baloney of course.

    Not that you are alone in suggesting that the majority at the 2A rally are white supremacists, lots of leftist media doing the same all week so they can continue to push that false narrative that conservatives and middle America (and the POTUS by extension given that they voted for him) are all racists.

    The truth of the matter is far different however, but open to being proven wrong and look forward to seeing you back up your assertion when the rally is over. Far as I'm concerned, as long as the violent radical left don't show up, can't see these peaceful patriots causing any trouble whatsoever.

    Couple of clips so far from the day ...


    https://twitter.com/America14047750/status/1219299508401647619
    https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1219308924370857984

    Who is someone like Benny defending him or herself against?
    Who do they think is going to attack them?
    Because some look like a ragtaggle military unit (wannabe soldiers), carrying obscene size guns.

    By the way, in the USA's first 20 days of the year...
    14 Mass Shootings in 2020 so far
    2,083 gun deaths in 2020 so far
    Reported by BBC news there just now
    Source: Gun Violence Archive
    And these "Peaceful Patriots" are ok with this as they don't want anything to change, in fact quite the contrary.


«13456789

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 18,923 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    You're just pushing a false narrative so you can malign those who disagree with you. This is something the left does constantly with Trump and those who voted for him. Suggest that he, and those who voted for him, are racist and that 'Make America Great' again is/was really about making America white again. It's baloney of course.

    Not that you are alone in suggesting that the majority at the 2A rally are white supremacists, lots of leftist media doing the same all week so they can continue to push that false narrative that conservatives and middle America (and the POTUS by extension given that they voted for him) are all racists.

    The truth of the matter is far different however, but open to being proven wrong and look forward to seeing you back up your assertion when the rally is over. Far as I'm concerned, as long as the violent radical left don't show up, can't see these peaceful patriots causing any trouble whatsoever.

    Couple of clips so far from the day ...


    https://twitter.com/America14047750/status/1219299508401647619
    https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1219308924370857984


    All these things that Americans need to defend themselves from? Do they ever ask why the rest of us aren't so goddam paranoid?

    Madness


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,006 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    You're just pushing a false narrative so you can malign those who disagree with you. This is something the left does constantly with Trump and those who voted for him. Suggest that he, and those who voted for him, are racist and that 'Make America Great' again is/was really about making America white again. It's baloney of course.

    Not that you are alone in suggesting that the majority at the 2A rally are white supremacists, lots of leftist media doing the same all week so they can continue to push that false narrative that conservatives and middle America (and the POTUS by extension given that they voted for him) are all racists.

    The truth of the matter is far different however, but open to being proven wrong and look forward to seeing you back up your assertion when the rally is over. Far as I'm concerned, as long as the violent radical left don't show up, can't see these peaceful patriots causing any trouble whatsoever.

    Couple of clips so far from the day ...


    https://twitter.com/America14047750/status/1219299508401647619
    https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1219308924370857984

    The “violent radical left” were there, marching along with the gun rights activists. I’m pretty sure you know that though.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Registered Users Posts: 15,531 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    The truth of the matter is far different however, but open to being proven wrong and look forward to seeing you back up your assertion when the rally is over. Far as I'm concerned, as long as the violent radical left don't show up, can't see these peaceful patriots causing any trouble whatsoever.

    You raised this issue of the violent left before and when asked you failed to provide any evidence of it, and were not able to explain why you were more worried about the idea of violence from the left than the actual violence from far right groups that has already happened.

    You are scared stiff of the bogeyman whilst jack the ripper tears up your town!

    And since when was a patriot someone that openly disregarded the democratically elected person in charge? A patriot to what, because they are not patriots to the USA as it currently stands.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,642 ✭✭✭eire4


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    You raised this issue of the violent left before and when asked you failed to provide any evidence of it, and were not able to explain why you were more worried about the idea of violence from the left than the actual violence from far right groups that has already happened.

    You are scared stiff of the bogeyman whilst jack the ripper tears up your town!

    And since when was a patriot someone that openly disregarded the democratically elected person in charge? A patriot to what, because they are not patriots to the USA as it currently stands.

    Scared stiff of an imaginary bogeyman indeed when in reality you are more likely to be killed by a police officer in the US then by a terrorist or anybody from this mysterious left in the US.

    https://thefreethoughtproject.com/u-s-citizens-58-times-killed-police-terrorists/


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 840 ✭✭✭peddlelies


    eire4 wrote: »
    Scared stiff of an imaginary bogeyman indeed when in reality you are more likely to be killed by a police officer in the US then by a terrorist or anybody from this mysterious left in the US.

    Garbage article from a most likely garbage blog. The real question is why are cops so trigger happy in the states, and when you look at crime data it becomes obvious why. They are in fear of their lives on a daily basis because of violent criminals who kill with zero remorse.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,885 ✭✭✭Christy42


    All these things that Americans need to defend themselves from? Do they ever ask why the rest of us aren't so goddam paranoid?

    Madness

    Surely you would put more effort into moving or cleaning up the streets in general if your area was that bad. I never understand the logic. I do think they are all waiting for their chance to suddenly star in Die Hard. Trump stoking up fear on it anyway (in spite of stating he was in favour of some similar measures in the past, at least before the new showed him the size of their cheque book).

    Though the actual laws they are protesting against are pretty light.


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,204 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    peddlelies wrote: »
    Garbage article from a most likely garbage blog. The real question is why are cops so trigger happy in the states, and when you look at crime data it becomes obvious why. They are in fear of their lives on a daily basis because of violent criminals who kill with zero remorse.

    But why?

    In the US - A low level smash and grab drug addict type thief brings a gun because the guy in the 7/11 almost certainly has a gun behind the counter and the police outside will shoot 1st.

    In Europe/Most of the rest of the world - They bring a knife/hammer or similar , because the guy behind the counter maybe has a baseball bat at most.

    There's also the crazy prison sentencing in the US - Of course a criminal is going to try to shoot their way out of things if they are facing Life without parole for their 3rd conviction for shoplifting. In Ireland , they are getting 18 months at most , so bringing a gun just makes no sense.

    Now - we absolutely positively need to have stricter sentencing here in Ireland , but the kinds of prison time being given out for low/mid level crimes in the US absolutely drives more violence - They are always going to rob businesses to feed a drug habit or whatever but a drug addict needing a fix knowing that if they get caught they are getting life in jail?? Of course they are bringing a gun and using it!

    It's an arms race in the US. Each side continues to get bigger and bigger guns to defend against the other. That's what has to stop, but in reality it's too far gone at this stage.

    It's a whole other thread to talk about Guns and Violence in the US though.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,956 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    The above key word in Quin_Dub's post is the most pertinent: America lives in an ever present Arms Race. And like any Arms Race, it needs someone with the strength of will to step back form the brink and show their hand. Of course, it'd need a huge restructuring of gun ownership regulations, criminal law, policing, culture etc. for it to work - and that's before you get into the "States Right" quagmire - but it's possible.

    Of course, thanks to Trump ripping up the Nuclear Treaty with Russia, we have an actual Arms Race again anyway, so there's that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 201 ✭✭Toeuptony


    pixelburp wrote: »
    The above key word in Quin_Dub's post is the most pertinent: America lives in an ever present Arms Race. And like any Arms Race, it needs someone with the strength of will to step back form the brink and show their hand. Of course, it'd need a huge restructuring of gun ownership regulations, criminal law, policing, culture etc. for it to work - and that's before you get into the "States Right" quagmire - but it's possible.

    Of course, thanks to Trump ripping up the Nuclear Treaty with Russia, we have an actual Arms Race again anyway, so there's that.

    This arms race also feeds into the coffers of the arms industry and their lobbying wing of the NRA. The mandatory sentencing also helps to increase the revenues of the privatized prison system in the US. Both the NRA and the private prison owners are backers of the GOP, so you can rest assured that there will be no change to either gun ownership or prison sentencing under a Republican administration.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,209 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    Toeuptony wrote: »
    This arms race also feeds into the coffers of the arms industry and their lobbying wing of the NRA. The mandatory sentencing also helps to increase the revenues of the privatized prison system in the US. Both the NRA and the private prison owners are backers of the GOP, so you can rest assured that there will be no change to either gun ownership or prison sentencing under a Republican administration.
    I dunno about the efficacy of the NRA as a money laundering/election fund for this election given its current financial woes


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,267 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Well, when the criminals decide that they will stop shooting people in cold blood, even those who are co-operating or just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, maybe we can de-escalate.

    Remember this from a fortnight ago?
    https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/27/us/dennys-robbery-delivery-driver-killed/index.html

    As the two men, wearing black coats and hats that covered much of their faces, were leaving the restaurant, they shot one man who police say had been sitting on the floor and cooperating. Police note the men took no money or items from the restaurant itself.
    Yusuf Ozgur, 56, entered the restaurant to pick up an order as the two suspects were leaving, according to the statement.
    Ozgur "was walking into the Denny's and unknowingly held the door for the suspects as they exited," according to police. One suspect struck him with a baton and the other shot him.


    If you believe that ‘strength of will’ is in any way a successful method for dealing with people who will shoot you dead for being polite or co-operative, Darwin’s ghost will have a few things to say to you when you are dispatched early to meet him.

    The idea that criminals, who by definition prey on those unable to stop them, will somehow decide they should disarm in the face of unarmed opposition, despite ample evidence that they do not, is pure idealism.
    I dunno about the efficacy of the NRA as a money laundering/election fund for this election given its current financial woes
    The NRA puts a lot less money into lobbying than many organizations. Gun control groups spend more. Its power is in the millions of people in its membership, all of whom have a vote at the ballot box. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/us/politics/nra-gun-control-fund-raising.html


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,165 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    duploelabs wrote: »
    I dunno about the efficacy of the NRA as a money laundering/election fund for this election given its current financial woes

    Exactly. The NRA ain't what they used to be. They are imploding. Their money and ergo their influence will die down.

    There has to be one straw that will eventually break the camel's back.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,799 ✭✭✭✭DrumSteve


    Well, when the criminals decide that they will stop shooting people in cold blood, even those who are co-operating or just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, maybe we can de-escalate.

    Remember this from a fortnight ago?
    https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/27/us/dennys-robbery-delivery-driver-killed/index.html

    As the two men, wearing black coats and hats that covered much of their faces, were leaving the restaurant, they shot one man who police say had been sitting on the floor and cooperating. Police note the men took no money or items from the restaurant itself.
    Yusuf Ozgur, 56, entered the restaurant to pick up an order as the two suspects were leaving, according to the statement.
    Ozgur "was walking into the Denny's and unknowingly held the door for the suspects as they exited," according to police. One suspect struck him with a baton and the other shot him.


    If you believe that ‘strength of will’ is in any way a successful method for dealing with people who will shoot you dead for being polite or co-operative, Darwin’s ghost will have a few things to say to you when you are dispatched early to meet him.

    The idea that criminals, who by definition prey on those unable to stop them, will somehow decide they should disarm in the face of unarmed opposition, despite ample evidence that they do not, is pure idealism.


    The NRA puts a lot less money into lobbying than many organizations. Gun control groups spend more. Its power is in the millions of people in its membership, all of whom have a vote at the ballot box. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/us/politics/nra-gun-control-fund-raising.html

    So why not make it harder for criminals to get guns?


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,531 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Well, when the criminals decide that they will stop shooting people in cold blood, even those who are co-operating or just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, maybe we can de-escalate.

    Remember this from a fortnight ago?
    https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/27/us/dennys-robbery-delivery-driver-killed/index.html

    As the two men, wearing black coats and hats that covered much of their faces, were leaving the restaurant, they shot one man who police say had been sitting on the floor and cooperating. Police note the men took no money or items from the restaurant itself.
    Yusuf Ozgur, 56, entered the restaurant to pick up an order as the two suspects were leaving, according to the statement.
    Ozgur "was walking into the Denny's and unknowingly held the door for the suspects as they exited," according to police. One suspect struck him with a baton and the other shot him.


    If you believe that ‘strength of will’ is in any way a successful method for dealing with people who will shoot you dead for being polite or co-operative, Darwin’s ghost will have a few things to say to you when you are dispatched early to meet him.

    The idea that criminals, who by definition prey on those unable to stop them, will somehow decide they should disarm in the face of unarmed opposition, despite ample evidence that they do not, is pure idealism.


    The NRA puts a lot less money into lobbying than many organizations. Gun control groups spend more. Its power is in the millions of people in its membership, all of whom have a vote at the ballot box. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/us/politics/nra-gun-control-fund-raising.html

    But evidence from everywhere else in the world shows that less gun availability does not lead to either more deaths or higher crime. So whilst it might seem logical that having a gun to protect yourself if the right thing to do, when everyone has one then it defeats the purpose as it, as it is anywhere, down to other factors such as a persons propensity for violence, what they value, what they stand to lose etc.

    You can certainly cite examples of where an unarmed person was shot despite having little threat to the perps, just as I can cite nearly every example of crime in Ireland where the preps didn't have a gun.

    The sort of people that you used as an example are clearly touched, and they are simply out to create havoc and have no regard for others. Not sure that using such an extreme example is useful in this debate.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,885 ✭✭✭Christy42


    everlast75 wrote: »
    Exactly. The NRA ain't what they used to be. They are imploding. Their money and ergo their influence will die down.

    There has to be one straw that will eventually break the camel's back.

    It will come down to the will of the people. Australia and the UK saw the havoc giving out guns to anyone caused and decided they couldn't pay that price again.

    The US decided it could and has paid it repeatedly. Their main fear is for their guns in the aftermath. I am not sure they will change their opinion. What could hurt them more than having their children shot at?

    @Manic: you are not the only country with criminals but you are the only one in the western world with so many gun related issues. Shockingly other methods have been tried and have been effective. Like really. It has also led to massively trigger happy cops where you have people shot in their own home for playing video games or eating ice cream (though the second was an ex cop).

    You aren't the only one with guns but it is the US with the problem. You can argue other issues if you like but since no one is doing anything about them may as well try something.

    Actually bring in serious gun laws and I guarantee Republicans will have sweeping mental health care reforms and money to back it within a year. All simply to get their guns back. So win win!


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,204 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Well, when the criminals decide that they will stop shooting people in cold blood, even those who are co-operating or just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, maybe we can de-escalate.

    Remember this from a fortnight ago?
    https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/27/us/dennys-robbery-delivery-driver-killed/index.html

    As the two men, wearing black coats and hats that covered much of their faces, were leaving the restaurant, they shot one man who police say had been sitting on the floor and cooperating. Police note the men took no money or items from the restaurant itself.
    Yusuf Ozgur, 56, entered the restaurant to pick up an order as the two suspects were leaving, according to the statement.
    Ozgur "was walking into the Denny's and unknowingly held the door for the suspects as they exited," according to police. One suspect struck him with a baton and the other shot him.


    If you believe that ‘strength of will’ is in any way a successful method for dealing with people who will shoot you dead for being polite or co-operative, Darwin’s ghost will have a few things to say to you when you are dispatched early to meet him.

    The idea that criminals, who by definition prey on those unable to stop them, will somehow decide they should disarm in the face of unarmed opposition, despite ample evidence that they do not, is pure idealism.


    The NRA puts a lot less money into lobbying than many organizations. Gun control groups spend more. Its power is in the millions of people in its membership, all of whom have a vote at the ballot box. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/us/politics/nra-gun-control-fund-raising.html

    So - Why does that kind of thing only seem to happen in the US then???

    Guns exist , they exist everywhere - Obviously there is an element of ease of access in the US , but there's also the more fundamental question about the US. Why are US citizens far more likely to use their guns than gun owners (legal or otherwise) in every other country on Earth??


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,061 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    DrumSteve wrote: »
    So why not make it harder for criminals to get guns?

    Please outline how you would accomplish that, perhaps after reading the previous threads on here that demonstrate how difficult a prospect it is.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,267 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    DrumSteve wrote: »
    So why not make it harder for criminals to get guns?

    How?

    The genie isn't getting back into the bottle. With a quarter billion guns in the US alone, the overwhelming majority of which the location of which are not known, the solution isn't going to be found in making guns hard to find.
    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    Guns exist , they exist everywhere - Obviously there is an element of ease of access in the US , but there's also the more fundamental question about the US. Why are US citizens far more likely to use their guns than gun owners (legal or otherwise) in every other country on Earth?.

    An excellent question, and it is precisely this difference which I have observed on Boards in the past. Unfortunately, too often the solution proposed(especially here) is based on an impossible tangible end state based on the premise that new laws can solve problems like this, and not a more feasible ethereal solution based instead on policies.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,531 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Amnesty followed by Zero tolerance. Make gun owners personally liable for the insurance on owning a gun.

    A longer term solution is akin to smoking.
    Make it illegal to openly advertise the sale of guns.
    Make joining gun clubs obligatory for gun ownership.
    Limit the capacity of magazines. (number of bullets)
    Place restrictions on the amount of ammo that can be purchased at any one time (like medicines).
    Raise the legal ownership age to 21, like alcohol.
    Place mandatory NCT type checks on guns and owners. Gun need to be tested every two years, to check for illegal modifications (all modifications become illegal) and all owners need to undergo a test every two years.

    Of course there is a way around pretty much any system, but most people simply get fed up having to jump through so many hoops simply to get something that is of questionable value.

    It isn't that hard. All of the above ideas are achievable since they have been in other areas. The only real difficulty is the willingness to change. Unfortunately the US has been without a strong enough leader to ever grasp the nettle and put the needs of the nation above their own political legacy. Obama has a massive opportunity to do it, but wavered and let the opportunity slip.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,885 ✭✭✭Christy42


    Honestly until gun owners seriously want to reduce violence (as a whole, not calling them all out individually) I don't think the law matters.

    What mattered in the UK, Australia and recently New Zealand was that people, in general, were primarily focused with making sure that it didn't happen again. I have yet to see that from the general US public/media/politicians after a shooting. (Again individually people had their own opinions in each of these countries but I am referring to the dominant message coming through from each)

    Of course this naturally led to laws being changed but I feel it has to come first


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,642 ✭✭✭eire4


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Amnesty followed by Zero tolerance. Make gun owners personally liable for the insurance on owning a gun.

    A longer term solution is akin to smoking.
    Make it illegal to openly advertise the sale of guns.
    Make joining gun clubs obligatory for gun ownership.
    Limit the capacity of magazines. (number of bullets)
    Place restrictions on the amount of ammo that can be purchased at any one time (like medicines).
    Raise the legal ownership age to 21, like alcohol.
    Place mandatory NCT type checks on guns and owners. Gun need to be tested every two years, to check for illegal modifications (all modifications become illegal) and all owners need to undergo a test every two years.

    Of course there is a way around pretty much any system, but most people simply get fed up having to jump through so many hoops simply to get something that is of questionable value.

    It isn't that hard. All of the above ideas are achievable since they have been in other areas. The only real difficulty is the willingness to change. Unfortunately the US has been without a strong enough leader to ever grasp the nettle and put the needs of the nation above their own political legacy. Obama has a massive opportunity to do it, but wavered and let the opportunity slip.


    Excellent points there. I especially like the insurance proposal as well. The problem remains though that the US is not a democracy but rather an oligarchy IMHO and the gun issue is a perfect example of it. Much of what you propose there is supported by significant majorities of the US population yet there is absolutely zero chance of any of it getting put into place now or anytime soon. Why is that well simply put because the US government is bought and paid for by the most wealthy and major corporations and those are whom they legislate for and run the country for the benefit of. That inludes the major gun manufacturers and other companies involves in the military industrial complex.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 840 ✭✭✭peddlelies


    What percentage of people carrying guns in the US do so legally?

    Hammering responsible gun owners isn't going to change much. Problem is poverty and lack of education, majority of which are cities ran by Democrats for decades who haven't done anything about the problems.

    https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/firearms-death-rate-by-raceethnicity/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D

    https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,204 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    peddlelies wrote: »
    What percentage of people carrying guns in the US do so legally?

    Hammering responsible gun owners isn't going to change much. Problem is poverty and lack of education, majority of which are cities ran by Democrats for decades who haven't done anything about the problems.

    https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/firearms-death-rate-by-raceethnicity/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D

    https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime

    "Gun Control" whilst needed , doesn't get to the core issue in the US , which is the relationship that the US has with guns.

    As I said earlier , even allowing for the number of guns in the US , they are used at a much much higher rate than anywhere else in the world.
    There's Poverty everywhere , there's mental health issues everywhere , but you are far more likely to get shot in the US than anywhere else.

    It seems that the gun has a very different place in society in the US than elsewhere. In other countries a gun is just a tool , not a whole lot different than a shovel or a drill , but it holds this place in the US psyche connecting it to Freedom , Independence and "The American way"..

    It's very unhealthy..


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,531 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    peddlelies wrote: »
    What percentage of people carrying guns in the US do so legally?

    Hammering responsible gun owners isn't going to change much. Problem is poverty and lack of education, majority of which are cities ran by Democrats for decades who haven't done anything about the problems.

    https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/firearms-death-rate-by-raceethnicity/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D

    https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime

    There were similar arguments made about smoking and alcohol. Sure what harm am I doing having the odd cigarette? Of course individually they are right, and that is why the individual, whilst being part of the solution, is not the only part.

    Like with smoking, you need to remove the idea of guns being just a natural part of life. Ban advertising, ban gun events. Coral gun owners into gun clubs. Remove the ability to own a gun under 21, and make it a criminal offence to sell off give guns to minors.

    Won't solve the problem today or tomorrow, and will never remove the problem entirely, but over time guns will stop being a natural part of conversation to being the oddity.

    Look at the examples of belting up in cars or drink driving in Ireland. When those campaigns commenced years ago many people would have said it would never happen. But over time, the younger crowd just move on.

    Most gun owner simply want to do nothing, sure there is no quick fix so what can we do.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,210 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    I just watched a news clip of the demonstration in Virginia. To european eyes it is impossible to believe that those swaggering, overdressed-up macho characters with their great big guns and their great big backpacks (lunch? spare ammo?) and their cute canvas pockets strapped on all over them are actually carrying lethal weapons, rather than the reenactor stuff you would see here. I wonder how many of them belong to a 'well regulated militia'.

    Not that they would care, but I wish I could express how deeply pathetic and immature I find them and in how much contempt I hold them. Even if they live in remote rural areas they do not need that much fire power - or dress up gear - to protect themselves.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,745 ✭✭✭Irish Praetorian


    An excellent question, and it is precisely this difference which I have observed on Boards in the past. Unfortunately, too often the solution proposed(especially here) is based on an impossible tangible end state based on the premise that new laws can solve problems like this, and not a more feasible ethereal solution based instead on policies.

    There is a problem with this argument, specifically the fact that it is stymied by the still unanswered question in the US as to what exactly guns are for. The 2nd Amendment seems to make reference to the potential problem of a tyrannical government, but more recent judgements like Heller seem to suggest that a person has a right to firearm level self-defence. So any time people propose a counter-argument to a gun-rights advocate on an issue (say for example crime) they get shut down with the retort that apparently the 2nd Amendment serves another purpose (say fighting a tyrannical government).

    Now, I would submit that the course which ought to be taken is the same one that is taken towards tobacco - people take it, people enjoy it legally, but in an ideal world people wouldn't see the need to take an addictive poison. In much the same game, our approach to guns should be the same, start with stopping advertisements for firearms. Nothing more complex than that, although even it would be a struggle to get through the fairly dilapidated structures of the US government. But it's a straightforward enough position - if people want a gun they can get one, but no-one is running around advertising them.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,267 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Amnesty followed by Zero tolerance. Make gun owners personally liable for the insurance on owning a gun.

    A longer term solution is akin to smoking.
    Make it illegal to openly advertise the sale of guns.
    Make joining gun clubs obligatory for gun ownership.
    Limit the capacity of magazines. (number of bullets)
    Place restrictions on the amount of ammo that can be purchased at any one time (like medicines).
    Raise the legal ownership age to 21, like alcohol.
    Place mandatory NCT type checks on guns and owners. Gun need to be tested every two years, to check for illegal modifications (all modifications become illegal) and all owners need to undergo a test every two years.

    Of course there is a way around pretty much any system, but most people simply get fed up having to jump through so many hoops simply to get something that is of questionable value.

    It isn't that hard. All of the above ideas are achievable since they have been in other areas. The only real difficulty is the willingness to change. Unfortunately the US has been without a strong enough leader to ever grasp the nettle and put the needs of the nation above their own political legacy. Obama has a massive opportunity to do it, but wavered and let the opportunity slip.

    I think you overstate the ability of Obama to have implemented much of the above, and utterly understate private protections in the US. To give an example, if I were to wear my sidearm openly down the street and walk past a cop, it is illegal for him to ask me for my license to carry. See for two recent examples on point: PA Supreme Court last year Some people are barred from gun ownership, and a license is required for a concealed firearm, the court said. But “there is no way to ascertain an individual’s licensing status, or status as a prohibited person, merely by his outward appearance.”. http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/spotting-a-concealed-gun-is-not-reason-enough-for-police-to-stop-and-investigate-top-state-court-rules or per the Indiana Supreme Court, even the fact that the person with the gun turned out to be a felon and prohibited is not, in itself, sufficient post-facto justification to talk with him before that was known. Thus, cannot be charged with unlawful possession of a firearm. https://reason.com/2017/05/12/carrying-a-gun-does-not-justify-detentio/

    It’s exactly the same reason why police can’t arbitrarily ask to see your driver’s license just because you’re operating a vehicle on the public highway.

    Similarly, even if it is known I have guns in the house, the police may not ask to inspect them, or my ammunition etc. Fourth Amendment is also a thing. This is also why a lot of the “banning” ideas simply won’t fly. Even if, somehow, 2A and the 44 State level equivalents were to be modified, good luck getting 4A modified, which will be necessary for the practical implementation of those policies. But let’s dig into them on a practical basis.

    Insurance under what criteria? Rounds fired per year? Carriage in public? To what end? No insurance company anywhere provides coverage for illegal acts. Take your Ford Focus as a getaway car, rob a bank, get into a crash, see if your insurance company pays out. So what is this insurance supposed to achieve? Or are you just trying to describe a tax to make ownership more expensive?

    Ban firearm advertising. California tried that. Actually, California had such a ban for 95 years. Two years ago a Federal Court said something about the First and Second amendments and away went that ban. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-handguns/judge-strikes-down-95-year-old-california-ban-on-storefront-handgun-ads-idUSKCN1LS2I5

    Mandatory gun club membership. Why? What if there is no gun club near you?

    Magazine capacity. As long as the use of a firearm for personal defense is legal, magazine capacity limits will be questionable. Arguments that “you don’t need more than (X many) rounds to defend yourself” demonstrate an ignorance of firefights. As a US federal judge ruled last year with respect to the new California ban on such. https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article228910364.html Currently under appeal, we’ll see how that goes. There is also the question of enforceability. The number of such magazines in the US begins with a “b”, they are visually indistinguishable from others. If folks don’t know how to remove hundreds of millions of firearms from circulation, good luck with the magazine problem.

    Ammunition restrictions. So, out of curiosity, how much is too much? Bearing in mind I will easily burn through a couple hundred rounds in a brief visit to the range. How will this be administered? Ration X many rounds per month? Total ownership at any one time? If the latter, how can that possibly be enforced? What would you do with the tens of thousands of people who reload their own ammunition? How would you even find out who they are?

    Age 21. Personally, I think the alcohol limit should be dropped to 18. (It actually is, for those in the military, who also happen to give guns to 18 year olds). This is one of the few suggestions you have, however, which is reasonably enactable. A number of States have restrictions on purchase of certain weapons until age 21. I’m not sure quite how much 18-21-year-old crime and accident it will solve, but it is doable.

    Tests. Ok, let’s say that the owner gets tested every two years. What are you looking for? To make sure that the person can correctly operate the weapon to make sure he can kill people? If your issue is the amount of murders, I suspect that isn’t a particular problem for the US gun owning population. If your issue is safety, I suspect a mandatory training regimen like driver’s ed or sex ed would be of greater result. After all, operating a firearm safely is far easier than operating a car (which doesn’t get tested all that much). And more people are killed in car accidents than gun accidents in a year. (500 with guns, 37,000 car)

    NCT. What is the purpose of checking for a modification? What is stopping me modifying my gun for 364 days, putting back the original part for a day, then re-changing it the next day again? I changed the trigger pull weight on my AUG. A single piece swap out in the trigger pack, took about ten minutes. Why do you even care what my trigger pull weight is? Turning my AK-74 into an assault weapon (under California law) took me about thirty seconds. It’ll take me about two minutes to make it ‘safe’ again if I ever have to bring it back to California.

    Basically, you have just thrown out a list of talking points/buzzword ideas without any due consideration to how or even why they should work. Further, not one of your proposals addresses anything institutional, be it policies aimed towards urban violence or changes in policing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,171 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    There is no "solving it". There are hundreds of millions of weapons in circulation amongst the US civilian population, thats the nub of the issue. Its a pandoras box and once its open theres no closing it again. The mass shootings and the tens of thousands of deaths evey year will continue and continue to get worse. Its the price that has to be paid if you wants rights like the second amendment allows. As far as I can tell since there is no real political will at grassroots level to change it, its a price that Americans are prepared to pay. It's a big country. No matter how many people get shot gun violence only directly effects a small % of the population and the rest read about it in the news and then get on with their lives, they don't really care.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,531 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    As always Manic you are great are pointing at what cannot be done. You are one of those that simply accept the situation for what it is and seem to suggest that nothing can be done. But let us look at some of your 'rebuttals' (and I point out that my list was simply some ideas not meant as the only complete solution)
    Insurance under what criteria? Rounds fired per year? Carriage in public? To what end? No insurance company anywhere provides coverage for illegal acts. Take your Ford Focus as a getaway car, rob a bank, get into a crash, see if your insurance company pays out. So what is this insurance supposed to achieve? Or are you just trying to describe a tax to make ownership more expensive?

    No, not a tax. But if you are out hunting and shoot someone by mistake then your insurance should pay out. If the firearm gets discharged by accident then insurance pays out. Kinda like motor insurance. You know, insurance against something out of the ordinary happens. If you modify it, if you don't complete the training, if you give your gun to a minor the insurance is void and the person is personally liable. You can't get insurance, well too bad. If it is fine for health insurance!

    A tax on ownership? Do you consider the price of a gun to be a tax on ownership? Should every citizen be entitled to free guns. What a ridiculous notion. Gun lovers love bringing the word tax into the debate because it plays to peoples basest hatred of tax.
    Ban firearm advertising. California tried that. Actually, California had such a ban for 95 years. Two years ago a Federal Court said something about the First and Second amendments and away went that ban. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-handguns/judge-strikes-down-95-year-old-california-ban-on-storefront-handgun-ads-idUSKCN1LS2I5

    So, bring in another ban without the laws. Trump got knocked back a few times on his Muslim ban so he simply rewrote it a bit. Cigarette advertising is limited, so under what logic would guns not be? Start off slowly. No advertising in places where kids are, before the watershed etc. Then over time increase it. Gun stores to only have a name sign at the front etc.
    Mandatory gun club membership. Why? What if there is no gun club near you?

    What if there isn't a football stadium, or horseriding facilities or swimming pool or hospital? Seriously, either open up a gun club or move. Where in the constitution does it state that the person must live within a certain distance of anything?
    Magazine capacity. As long as the use of a firearm for personal defense is legal, magazine capacity limits will be questionable. Arguments that “you don’t need more than (X many) rounds to defend yourself” demonstrate an ignorance of firefights. As a US federal judge ruled last year with respect to the new California ban on such. https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article228910364.html Currently under appeal, we’ll see how that goes. There is also the question of enforceability. The number of such magazines in the US begins with a “b”, they are visually indistinguishable from others. If folks don’t know how to remove hundreds of millions of firearms from circulation, good luck with the magazine problem.

    Of course it will be questionable, unless a standard is agreed. Let's say 10 bullets. If you need more than 10 bullets to defend yourself you are either a terrible shot or the trouble is far more than a simple robbery. Firefights? This is supposed to be about defence. Scare off would be attackers until you can get away.

    Again, you are looking at a one time solution and seeing it as a problem. I agree that enforcement now would be difficult, hence the gun club membership and insurance which would require adherence to the standards, but you also ban the sale of all magazines outside a standard. Would that stop people buying 5, 6 10? No of course not. But it would limit the vast majority of "I just want something for defence of my home' types to buy standard and thus reduce the problem. Over time it becomes the norm.
    Ammunition restrictions. So, out of curiosity, how much is too much? Bearing in mind I will easily burn through a couple hundred rounds in a brief visit to the range. How will this be administered? Ration X many rounds per month? Total ownership at any one time? If the latter, how can that possibly be enforced? What would you do with the tens of thousands of people who reload their own ammunition? How would you even find out who they are?

    In the restrictive confines of a range, with the range having responsibility, of course people who are members can use whatever number of rounds they want. But when buying it you are limited to a certain number. Like I said, it could easily be done the same or medicines. Here you can only buy a limited amount of Paracetamol at a time. Of course, there is nothing to stop me from going in to multiple shops, or stockpiling. But most people simply don't bother. They buy when they need it, maybe a box just in case, but thats it.

    If you really wanted to keep track, then every box should have a unique serial number, and to buy a box you need to produce your gun licence, with your membership number. Doctors are supposed to keep track of drugs they give to patients, how would this be any different?
    Age 21. Personally, I think the alcohol limit should be dropped to 18. (It actually is, for those in the military, who also happen to give guns to 18 year olds). This is one of the few suggestions you have, however, which is reasonably enactable. A number of States have restrictions on purchase of certain weapons until age 21. I’m not sure quite how much 18-21-year-old crime and accident it will solve, but it is doable.

    Glad we agree on something, I think!
    Tests. Ok, let’s say that the owner gets tested every two years. What are you looking for? To make sure that the person can correctly operate the weapon to make sure he can kill people? If your issue is the amount of murders, I suspect that isn’t a particular problem for the US gun owning population. If your issue is safety, I suspect a mandatory training regimen like driver’s ed or sex ed would be of greater result. After all, operating a firearm safely is far easier than operating a car (which doesn’t get tested all that much). And more people are killed in car accidents than gun accidents in a year. (500 with guns, 37,000 car)

    You you rather that people own guns without any need to know how to use them or care for them? Don't you think driving licences are a good idea? You are testing to make sure that if the unfortunate times comes when the gun needs to be used, the owner knows how to do it safely. Not wild shots going everywhere. That they show an understanding of gun safety, gun maintenance etc. Of course it needs to be combined with education, and so we are back to gun clubs!
    NCT. What is the purpose of checking for a modification? What is stopping me modifying my gun for 364 days, putting back the original part for a day, then re-changing it the next day again? I changed the trigger pull weight on my AUG. A single piece swap out in the trigger pack, took about ten minutes. Why do you even care what my trigger pull weight is? Turning my AK-74 into an assault weapon (under California law) took me about thirty seconds. It’ll take me about two minutes to make it ‘safe’ again if I ever have to bring it back to California.

    What is the purpose for in vehicles? It to create a disincentive. Are you really going to bother buying a mod, attaching and removing it? Of course certain people will, just as certain people derestrict their motorbikes and cars, but the vast majority won't bother. And then where are you going to buy it. Legit shops won't sell them as they are illegal. So now you are forced onto the black market. Are you really going to become a criminal just to get a modification? And you do you tell about your new mod?
    Basically, you have just thrown out a list of talking points/buzzword ideas without any due consideration to how or even why they should work. Further, not one of your proposals addresses anything institutional, be it policies aimed towards urban violence or changes in policing.

    Oh sorry, did I fail to come up with a complete a full proof plan to tackle the years long gun violence in the US? Jeez, I'm sorry. You are one of those that if everything isn't perfect and foolproof then it isn't even worth trying. Well we tried your way of just letting whatever happens happen, and the carnage is the result. SO why not try something else? Of course it needs to be done within the confines of the constitution, but there are always ways.
    I think you overstate the ability of Obama to have implemented much of the above, and utterly understate private protections in the US. To give an example, if I were to wear my sidearm openly down the street and walk past a cop, it is illegal for him to ask me for my license to carry. See for two recent examples on point: PA Supreme Court last year Some people are barred from gun ownership, and a license is required for a concealed firearm, the court said. But “there is no way to ascertain an individual’s licensing status, or status as a prohibited person, merely by his outward appearance.”. http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/spotting-a-concealed-gun-is-not-reason-enough-for-police-to-stop-and-investigate-top-state-court-rules or per the Indiana Supreme Court, even the fact that the person with the gun turned out to be a felon and prohibited is not, in itself, sufficient legal justification to talk with him. Thus, cannot be charged with unlawful possession of a firearm. https://reason.com/2017/05/12/carrying-a-gun-does-not-justify-detentio/

    I don't overestimate his ability, he failed so he had none, and neither do I underestimate the difficulties. And that is precisely why it needs to start with the type of points I raised. You need a culture change, simply enacting laws won't work. And that takes time. You need to show those so opposed to any change the benefits it brings to society.
    It’s exactly the same reason why police can’t randomly ask to see your driver’s license just because you’re operating a vehicle on the public highway.

    Similarly, even if it is known I have guns in the house, the police may not ask to inspect them, or my ammunition etc. Fourth Amendment is also a thing. This is also why a lot of the “banning” ideas simply won’t fly. Even if, somehow, 2A and the 44 State level equivalents were to be modified, good luck getting 4A modified, which will be necessary for the practical implementation of those policies.

    Yeah I get it. But again, that is why you start at the top. Tackle it from the POV of the manufacturers, the gun shops and the gun conferences. Limit the number of type of weapons. Limit the type of ammo. Set age restrictions. Set exams and tests. Would it stop people from owning guns. Of course not. Too many, but very very much the minority, cannot ever give hem up. But over time, and we have seen this across numerous examples, the culture will start to change. It is even changing within the US. There is a clear culture difference across the different states. So start now and changing that.

    And we know it works because in almost every other country in the world in works. But apparently people in the US are completely incapable of change!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,745 ✭✭✭Irish Praetorian


    MadYaker wrote: »
    There is no "solving it". There are hundreds of millions of weapons in circulation amongst the US civilian population, thats the nub of the issue. Its a pandoras box and once its open theres no closing it again. The mass shootings and the tens of thousands of deaths evey year will continue and continue to get worse. Its the price that has to be paid if you wants rights like the second amendment allows. As far as I can tell since there is no real political will at grassroots level to change it, its a price that Americans are prepared to pay. It's a big country. No matter how many people get shot gun violence only directly effects a small % of the population and the rest read about it in the news and then get on with their lives, they don't really care.


    Yeah, the more I think about it really I think the best thing you can do if you want gun control is settle in for a long (and I'm talking decades at the quickest) campaign of mind changing and trying to win the cultural battle. Took the gays about 60 years to go from illegality to being able to marry, maybe guns are the same way. Now of course the obvious problem is you have a very large and vibrant counter-movement and there's a more visceral and entrenched love of guns in the US than there was a love of gay-bashing.


Advertisement