Gun Violence and how to address it

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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.

Manic Moran wrote: »

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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

Manic Moran wrote: »

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.

Manic Moran wrote: »

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.

Manic Moran wrote: »

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?

Manic Moran wrote: »

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.

Manic Moran wrote: »

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?

Manic Moran wrote: »

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!

Manic Moran wrote: »

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!

Manic Moran wrote: »

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?

Manic Moran wrote: »

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.

Manic Moran wrote: »

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.

Manic Moran wrote: »

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!

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

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.

Also the bar for constitutional change is set very high (too high imo) its just never going to happen. It was all well and good in the 1700s when the population of the US was around 4 - 5 million but in the modern era granting a population right to bear arms is insanity.

MadYaker wrote: »

Also the bar for constitutional change is set very high (too high imo) its just never going to happen. It was all well and good in the 1700s when the population of the US was around 4 - 5 million but in the modern era granting a population right to bear arms is insanity.

Well precisely, which is why you would need even more than the level of support gay-marriage received if you wanted to manage an amendment. Frankly I think issues other than gun control could act as a catalyst to change that situation but really it's not a good idea for so much of the population to be so constrained by their political institutions for so long. Too often in the US it seems like an idea has quite a bit of popular support, but founders on either Constitutional grounds or through the arcane structure of the electoral system. Things like the disconnect between the electoral college and the popular vote can't keep going on without producing serious discontent within the system.

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Whats wrong with the electoral college? Its the same as proportional representation in this country and nobody is complaining about that. You have a better chance of implementing successful gun control in West Virginia than getting citizens to give up their rights to the electoral college.

What's wrong with it? Well simply put instead of electing a leader based upon the votes of either the majority of the population or the single most popular individual out of a list, you end up apportioning votes based on a series of local races which (with the exception of Maine and Nebraska) then disregard the votes of the losers and subsequently select a leader based on the electoral votes which are in and of themselves often unevenly assigned. One of the problems with the system means theoretically you could win the presidency despite about three quarters of the population voting against you. My chief complaint though is that it engenders political apathy in 'solid states' by leaving opposition voters no incentive to take part or even campaign for their candidates whilst at the same time it leaves a serious deficit in the representative credentials of the country when the elected president is objectively less popular a candidate than their supposedly defeated rival. So apart from driving down participation, encouraging political apathy, creating 'safe' and 'in play' areas and haemorrhaging the legitimacy of the office of presidency, I'm fine with it.

skooterblue2 wrote: »

If it was down to the majority of the population there would be nothing for rural voters or voters outside of the 6 major cities. So Donnie was a smarter general and worked the electoral college? I have never heard a complain about proportional representation or the electoral college before this. Is there any chance that polls got it wrong on election day, by any chance? Be gracious and accept defeat. Trump is doing fine in the polls and the Republican party. Just be grateful you arent under HRC and her colostomy bag.

The EC is not PV.

Obviously you never heard about the famous 2000 election where the debate about the EC came up when Al Gore won the most votes but lost because of the EC. (Ignoring the messing of the USSC for wrapping up the Florida recounts)

---

I then read the end of your post and realised you're not likely to be a, how would you put it, an informed poster. Good day.

skooterblue2 wrote: »

If it was down to the majority of the population there would be nothing for rural voters or voters outside of the 6 major cities. So Donnie was a smarter general and worked the electoral college? I have never heard a complain about proportional representation or the electoral college before this. Is there any chance that polls got it wrong on election day, by any chance? Be gracious and accept defeat. Trump is doing fine in the polls and the Republican party. Just be grateful you arent under HRC and her colostomy bag.

The population of the 6 biggest US cities comes to about 16 million people - now assuming every one of them turns out to vote (including those under-aged and not eligible to vote) then you've got maybe 10% of the total voter turnout? Not exactly a way to lock in victory. Now as to the rural voters, I'm not sure if you actually read my post but if you did you will observe that the value of the popular vote is that it actually means the red votes in California and the blue votes in Texas start to count towards the final result, rather than being dropped at the collegial stage. I don't think you can do much better than having an Iowan farmer's vote count exactly the same a San Francisco barista's which is what a popular vote system would do.

Now as for the rest of your post, if you're looking for people to wind up maybe you want to try After Hours, we try to keep a better standard here and we've already dragged this thread off-topic, so lets navigate back to the gun question.

Lyan wrote: »

The right to bear arms will always be a justifable counter-balance to government power. It's a freedom dictators are always quick to remove.

If that's the case, why don't we have such a "counter-balance" in our constitution?

Why don't other countries?

It's frankly a bananas argument.

skooterblue2 wrote: »

That is just old school Skull and Bones stuff. Either way the same agenda would have been fulfilled. The same way this was to be Jeb Bush's "Turn". Jeb knew he wasnt going to get a look in so that is when HRC was called in. Dont you just love it when the NWO dont get their turn. As I recall Al Gore didnt call for a recount?

I've tried reading this over and over and I just don't get it. Sorry. You're clearly so adroit at making this argument that a mere pleb such as myself can't penetrate it. Apologies.