discuss Gun Laws

[Bernard Wright]

This is just a hodgepodge of thoughts. I won't distinguish between good and bad people. I'll focus on peoples' actions.

Bad actors shouldn't have guns for committing acts of violence against innocent people, nor for threatening innocent people with potential violence. It would be nice if society could prevent a bad actor from obtaining the gun used in a bad act.

Good actors should have the right to defend themselves and others against bad actors with necessary force. Such force includes the threat of lethal violence, and the use of lethal violence if necessary.

Bad actors don't have regard for the rule of law when acting in a criminal manner.

Society is comprised of individuals pursuing their own interests. Laws are instated to ensure that individuals' rights are not infringed upon by another person or entity. When an individual infringes upon another individual's rights, there are criminal and civil procedures to deal with such matters, overseen by our governing officials. In extreme cases, when the infringing party is a usurping government, it is up to the citizens to protect their natural freedoms from that government. This happens rarely, but it happens. It is wise for an individual to aspire to maintain his/her own personal sovereignty and ability to protect him/herself from unjust threats.

A good actor is responsible for protecting him/herself and, if desired, other people from threats and acts of violence. When police officers are capable of assisting, assistance is welcomed, but the police's main duty is to maintain law and order, not to protect another individual from immediate threat. The individual's primal concern is his/her own personal safety, and this is a responsibility that lies within every individual when faced with a threat of violence.

A gun is a tool. A gun can do a number of things. Here are three examples.

1. a gun can be used to engage in a violent act.
2. a gun can be used to deescalate/end a violent act.
3. a gun can be used to deescalate/end a threat of violence.

We are all players in society with an interest in pursuing our best interests and defending our well-being. Laws that would take guns away from some bad actors are sure to also result in fewer armed good actors who could deescalate violent and potentially violent situations. Violence is not good. Good actors with guns end violent situations more quickly and effectively than good actors without guns do. There are hundreds of millions of firearms on this planet. A bad actor with the desire to obtain a gun will always have the means to locate a gun. Black markets are real.

Good actors should have the legal right to possess guns in order to protect themselves, and others, from bad actors.

 

[Joe N]

251 Mass shootings this year in the US , thats just plain crazy!

It's obscene!

@Bernard Wright - If stricter gun controls and less guns in general are not the solution, then please enlighten us... How does the U.S. go about improving this statistic? There's no way you could possibly agree this is an acceptable status quo.

 

[Joe N]

I will state this clearly. I am 100% for any laws that will curb gun violence and make the US safer without infringing upon the freedoms of responsible and well-intentioned gun owners who would use guns for benevolent purposes. I’m yet to read any suggestions as to what those changes in law would entail. One can say “Government should make it happen”, but the question is, how? What policy prescriptions do you have that will achieve this end? By what measure is it reasonable to suggest the proposed laws won’t result in a breaking point that could escalate tensions and increase violence?

You've shot down every reasonable idea, statistic, and argument that has been presented here. There's no point sharing any more of them with you. So the only question that remains is: What is your idea to curb gun violence?

 

[Bernard Wright]

I think @TestCase put forth an idea worth pondering. I’d be open to reading others’ critiques of the “mandatory gun safety and use training for all residents”.

 

[Joe N]

I think @TestCase put forth an idea worth pondering. I’d be open to reading others’ critiques of the “mandatory gun safety and use training for all residents”.

And do you think it's worth pursuing ideas that have a reasonable chance of decreasing the number of guns that are owned/used by violent criminals?

 

[Bernard Wright]

To the degree that collateral damage in the name of infringing upon the rights of responsible and lawful gun owners is not an unintended consequence, yes.

 

[D Haynes]

Id say a blanket ban on firearms is logistically impossible now. It could be that some sort of ban and buy back scheme might phase out gun ownership over the next hundred years say but the earth and its weapons will be a different beast by then.

Is it more likely the reason for the mass shootings is a sharp increase in mental health issues as a result of the social media society Americans live if probably to a much deeper extent than any other country on the planet. 1st world problems at their greatest. I'm sure none of the perpetrators of these shootings are mentally stable. An entire way of life change would need to happen before anything changes.

Having thought about, I honestly think there are no viable options. I think these shootings will become more common place and there isn't a thing that can be done about it with the resources we have. It's just going to be part of life. Soon you won't even hear about anything with less that 10 deaths as it won't make the news.

 

[Joe N]

To the degree that collateral damage in the name of infringing upon the rights of responsible and lawful gun owners is not an unintended consequence, yes.

So you would argue that the right to own a gun is more important than the need to get guns away from violent criminals?

 

[Bernard Wright]

Id say a blanket ban on firearms is logistically impossible now. It could be that some sort of ban and buy back scheme might phase out gun ownership over the next hundred years say but the earth and its weapons will be a different beast by then.

Is it more likely the reason for the mass shootings is a sharp increase in mental health issues as a result of the social media society Americans live if probably to a much deeper extent than any other country on the planet. 1st world problems at their greatest. I'm sure none of the perpetrators of these shootings are mentally stable. An entire way of life change would need to happen before anything changes.

Having thought about, I honestly think there are no viable options. I think these shootings will become more common place and there isn't a thing that can be done about it with the resources we have. It's just going to be part of life. Soon you won't even hear about anything with less that 10 deaths as it won't make the news.

I think there is reason to believe you are right. One thing is certain: if faced with such violent threats, it is your God-given right to protect yourself and others, no matter what others tell you.

 

[Joe N]

I think there is reason to believe you are right. One thing is certain: if faced with such violent threats, it is your God-given right to protect yourself and others, no matter what others tell you.

Nothing is certain in this debate, which is why it's so contentious. And God has nothing to do with your right to own guns...

 

[Bernard Wright]

So you would argue that the right to own a gun is more important than the need to get guns away from violent criminals?

Are you suggesting you have a policy in mind that will certainly eliminate all guns from would-be violent criminals?

 

[Joe N]

Are you suggesting you have a policy in mind that will certainly eliminate all guns from would-be violent criminals?

I'm just trying to understand what your priority is. We know that it's impossible to remove guns from criminals without also removing them from regular citizens. If a policy could be explored that has a reasonable chance of reducing violent gun deaths, would you be willing to sacrifice some of your rights as they currently are?

No specifics here. I just want to know in general if you're okay with this notion.

 

[Bernard Wright]

I’m interested only in specifics.

 

[Keith]

Id say a blanket ban on firearms is logistically impossible now. It could be that some sort of ban and buy back scheme might phase out gun ownership over the next hundred years say but the earth and its weapons will be a different beast by then.

Is it more likely the reason for the mass shootings is a sharp increase in mental health issues as a result of the social media society Americans live if probably to a much deeper extent than any other country on the planet. 1st world problems at their greatest. I'm sure none of the perpetrators of these shootings are mentally stable. An entire way of life change would need to happen before anything changes.

Having thought about, I honestly think there are no viable options. I think these shootings will become more common place and there isn't a thing that can be done about it with the resources we have. It's just going to be part of life. Soon you won't even hear about anything with less that 10 deaths as it won't make the news.

Mental health is a medical issue that has nothing to do with social media or anything else.

Your idea of doing nothing about gun violence would be like not doing nothing when you get sick. In fact, when your body breaks down, most people seek treatment. Our system regarding guns is broken. We can do nothing and let the disease fester or, take steps to improve the situation.

 

[Joe N]

I’m interested only in specifics.

But none exist. The issue is so massive that even the best statisticians can't provide accurate numbers on either side. So many of the numbers rely on people's testimony, which can be wildly subjective.

The question you need to ask yourself is if you're okay living with a short-term loss, in order to hopefully arrive at a long-term gain.

I think we all agree something needs to change.

I think we all agree that it's impossible to know if a proposed change will be successful (and to what degree).

Logic follows that if things need to change, it is better to do something rather than not do something.

These types of policies are an iterative process. They need constant tweaking and adjustment and years and years before we might start to see positive results. But isn't it worth it? Don't you want to try doing something, instead of sitting on your hands and accepting your country as it is right now?

 

[Bernard Wright]

But none exist. The issue is so massive that even the best statisticians can't provide accurate numbers on either side. So many of the numbers rely on people's testimony, which can be wildly subjective.

The question you need to ask yourself is if you're okay living with a short-term loss, in order to hopefully arrive at a long-term gain.

I think we all agree something needs to change.

I think we all agree that it's impossible to know if a proposed change will be successful (and to what degree).

Logic follows that if things need to change, it is better to do something rather than not do something.

These types of policies are an iterative process. They need constant tweaking and adjustment and years and years before we might start to see positive results. But isn't it worth it? Don't you want to try doing something, instead of sitting on your hands and accepting your country as it is right now?

What is your “do something” solution?

 

[Bernard Wright]

Mental health is a medical issue that has nothing to do with social media or anything else.

Your idea of doing nothing about gun violence would be like not doing nothing when you get sick. In fact, when your body breaks down, most people seek treatment. Our system regarding guns is broken. We can do nothing and let the disease fester or, take steps to improve the situation.

Perhaps gun violence is the tip of iceberg, and perhaps the tip is teetering. Maybe the causes of gun violence should be addressed first. Perhaps we should start at the foundation. You raise a good point. My contention has been that addressing gun violence haphazardly is very risky. Given this, perhaps it would be wise to look below the surface instead. Look deeper than the gun and look at the individuals.

 

[Joe N]

What is your “do something” solution?

The solution isn't important right now. Americans and their government need to decide to do something.

If that something is based on thoughtful analysis, techniques that have been successful in other countries, and a willingness to be diligent in constantly improving, then it stands to reason that things will get better over time, rather than worse.

Do you disagree?

 

[Joe N]

Perhaps gun violence is the tip of iceberg, and perhaps the tip is teetering. Maybe the causes of gun violence should be addressed first. Perhaps we should start start at the foundation. You raise a good point. My contention has been that addressing gun violence haphazardly is very risky. Given this, perhaps it would be wise to look below the surface instead. Look deeper than the gun and look at the individuals.

I think the ideal solution encompasses all of these factors.

 

[D Haynes]

Mental health is a medical issue that has nothing to do with social media or anything else.

I would whole heartedly disagree. The social media society is to blame for huge increases in cases of anxiety, suicide, self harming, bullying and other personality disorders. To say mental health has nothing to do with anything else is absurd. Anyway we're off topic.

 

[Keith]

The solution isn't important right now. Americans and their government need to decide to do something.

If that something is based on thoughtful analysis, techniques that have been successful in other countries, and a willingness to be diligent in constantly improving, then it stands to reason that things will get better over time, rather than worse.

Do you disagree?

I can’t go to the store and buy cocaine because the drug might kill ME. It’s a personal decision as to what people ingest but the government thinks otherwise.

Meanwhile, I can go to the store and buy a gun that might kill me, but also might kill you, your kids, my kids, and anyone else who gets in the way of a bullet. That’s perfectly fine with the government because they’ve been purchased by the NRA.

If you can’t see the issue here, of how laws and politicians are unjust, idk what else to say.

 

[Bernard Wright]

I’ve never said nothing should be tried. My point is that it is not reasonable to suggest that we can expect the outcomes of any policy to meet its stated objectives. Decreasing gun violence sounds like a simple and noble objective, but the problem is extremely complex. Perhaps analysis has indeed been done, and a conscious decision had been made not to impose stricter gun laws. The fact that there are no new laws doesn’t mean new laws haven’t been considered. Or, perhaps they indeed have not been considered. Either way, the contention among those who would seek stricter gun laws in this thread would be the same. So my question remains, how does your idea play out in reality?

TestCase’s idea might hold merit. The financial burden is clear. Aside from that, what are the cons?

 

[Keith]

I would whole heartedly disagree. The social media society is to blame for huge increases in cases of in anxiety, suicide, self harming, bullying and other personality disorders. To say mental health has nothing to do with anything else is absurd. Anyway we're off topic.

Social media and suicide aren’t related to mental health. Sure, kids get bullied online and kill themselves. That’s not the same as taking a gun and mowing scores of people down in a matter of seconds.

 

[D Haynes]

Your idea of doing nothing about gun violence would be like not doing nothing when you get sick. In fact, when your body breaks down, most people seek treatment. Our system regarding guns is broken. We can do nothing and let the disease fester or, take steps to improve the situation.

I think taking the guns away is impossible at this point. The only feasible way to tackle the larger issue is to try and tackle the underlying issues like why are these people choosing to use the guns to shoot people in the first place.

 

[D Haynes]

Social media and suicide aren’t related to mental health. Sure, kids get bullied online and kill themselves. That’s not the same as taking a gun and mowing scores of people down in a matter of seconds.

Social media and suicide aren’t related to mental health. Sure, kids get bullied online and kill themselves. That’s not the same as taking a gun and mowing scores of people down in a matter of seconds.

How is that not a mental health issue?! If that isn't I Don't know what is lol. Depression is a mental health issue that can be brought on through social media interaction just the same as someone can be brain washed on an extremist forum and decide to make a point by shooting people they don't like the colour, race, religion or anything else of.

 

[Joe N]

I’ve never said nothing should be tried. My point is that it is not reasonable to suggest that we can expect the outcomes of any policy to meet their stated objectives. Decreasing gun violence sounds like a simple and noble objective, but the problem is extremely complex. Perhaps analysis has indeed been done, and a conscious decision had been made not to impose stricter gun laws. The fact that there are no new laws doesn’t been new laws haven’t been considered. Or, perhaps they indeed have not been considered. Either way, the contention among those who would seek stricter gun laws in this thread would be the same. So my question remains, how does your idea play out in reality?

TestCase’s idea might hold merit. The financial burden is clear. Aside from that, what are the cons?

Test Case's idea is a great start. Maybe it's phase 1 and then we see if/how things have improved.

Phase 2 could be heavier background checks or restricting more types of firearms, or both. Maybe the minimum age for purchase gets increased to 25.

If that produces positive results, phase 3 could be restricting where and how guns can be held/carried.

This is what I mean by an iterative process. Something has to change, so try things. Implement a policy, analyze, tweak it, and then press forward. It doesn't have to stop at training. Things can always be made better.

So what are you gaining by hearing reasonable ideas and shooting them down? Could they fail? Yes. Could they succeed? Also yes. So be a positive contributor. Why talk about how ideas might fail when you could talk about what might work?