Labeled as discuss in The Break Room started by Bernard Wright, May 13, 2019.
So all that to say that your solution is: "It's hard, so let's not try"?
Well I hear intimacy is a good thing so not so sure about this reasoning. Maybe the problem is that people in general have issues with intimacy? Maybe the solution is to make guns more intimate AND provide therapy to help people with intimacy issues surrounding killing. Don't laugh please - it's clear this issue requires thinking outside the box.
The clear point is, you do not need nor deserve to have a firearm. Prove that you do.
What are you looking for, Bernard? Perhaps deep down you know there is something off with America's obsession with firearms?
Owning firearms is not a right, it is a privilege. It can only be granted to those who can respect that privilege, not those on a whim some sort of "personal right", where enacting in moments of an unsettled mind can result in consequences forever changed. Moving this line of thought, and implementing it via law, along with then eradicating illegal possession, will take years, decades. But it must be done.
They are like vehicles. In the wrong hands, automatic killing machines. This is why the ability to drive a vehicle requires a license. But even then, look at the damage vehicles have done. Good gun laws is not the only solution. Everything comes down to the individual, and the decisions they choose to make. If someone want a gun, or to use a vehicle to drive down a bunch of innocents, they will find a way to do so, regardless of the laws in place. But we can try, can't we?
"We are at one of the great turning points in human history when the survival of our planet and the restoration of our humanity require a great sea change in our ecological, economic, political, and spiritual values." Grace Lee Boggs
No laughing, I promise. I'm not even sure what you're talking about.
What, specifically are you calling "hard"?
Passing legislation is hard, you mean?
Ending unnecessary gun violence is hard, you mean?
Confiscating guns from owners is hard, you mean?
1. The least-difficult of the three. It could be tried, but I don't believe it would result in the outcomes most of the citizens of the US would set out to achieve in passing such legislation. My previous posts explain why.
2. Indeed it is hard. And realistically, violence will never completely end.
3. It's impossible to seize 400 million guns. We don't even know how many there really are. How do we know when we've seized the last gun? How do we quarantine the homes and property of those who have already been searched to ensure they don't amass stockpiles after the fact? Is this even up for consideration in your mind? Start knocking on gun owners doors and tell them to give you all their guns. Let's see how your day goes.
Again, I don't doubt that you are well-intentioned. Your solutions just aren't grounded in reality.
When the threat of lethal force exists, every citizen has the god-given right to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their way of life from the use of that lethal force when it is in the hands of people who would threaten those things. If someone has a gun and threatens to use it against you, you have the right to protect yourself by all means necessary. Some means are more effective than others. The most effective countermeasure when faced with lethal force is lethal force in turn.
I don't think Americans are obsessed with firearms. So, no. I don't know this.
I think this might be my final post in this thread. The Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights is the very tenant we are discussing. It is a bill of rights. I'm not here to debate the obvious.
You answered your own question right there. Seriously. It's not the responsible, law-abiding gun owners anyone in this thread are concerned with. Some people would surely surrender their firearms if a bill were passed to such effect. But the individuals society should be most concerned with are the gun owners who have no regard for the law, no regard for human life, and/or are mentally unstable. I have made this point clear many times that the only countermeasure to force in the hands of such people is equal or superior force. It's a fact. That kid in the article you linked to couldn't have asked the shooter to put down the gun and hand it over. The only thing that could have saved the kid from that shooter was for the shooter to either run out of ammo or to be taken out. Would-be shooters are going to have a lot more time to use up all their ammo so long as they can act out their crimes uncontested.
Tell a murderer guns are illegal. Murderers don't care about legality.
Pass a law, start confiscating guns, watch gun owners start shooting the confiscators. Watch things escalate to civil war. All in the name of ending violence.
This might be my last. I'm repeating myself a lot in these posts, and I'm debating the obvious.
Yeah, just saw this thread in current post window and wanted to jump in, and then back out.
On more than occasion in my life, a gun has saved my life. I've been self employed for 90% of my life and at times carried large amounts of cash...it doesn't take a criminal too long to figure out who the main man (or woman) is at a business and target them for robbery.
Had a crackhead once try to get into my house (thinking he was on the other side of town and out of his mind) carrying a machete and insisting he get free drugs...a gun saved me and my family that time as well.
Once I ran a bear out of my garage by firing a weapon in its general direction.
Once I am provided a 24 hour guard(s) to protect me and my family wherever and whenever I (they) live or travel, then you may ask for my weapon.
You can't ransack people's homes looking for guns... people have rights. Make them illegal and impose heavy fines on people who are caught owning unregistered or illegal weapons.
Will you get rid of all guns? Of course not. There are illegal guns in all countries. The point is to start the process so that eventually attitudes change, fewer and fewer guns become accessible over time, and gun violence decreases. The process could take decades. You need to start somewhere, though.
What kind of nation would you live in if your leaders were constantly throwing their hands in the air and exclaiming, "This is too hard! Let's give up!"? Slavery would still be legal... Women would still not be allowed to vote... The British would still run the country (which is the whole reason the 2nd amendment exists... FYI: it's no longer an issue).
By your logic, we should make drugs legal as well. Lots of people possess and use them illegally, so why bother trying to stop them? Wal-mart should sell crack and heroin right alongside their gun display. Now you've got yourself a fun weekend!
You say people have the right to defend themselves by whatever means necessary. Who determines what's necessary? Terrorists bomb people, so can I install landmines around my property to protect myself? Are you okay with militia patrolling the streets unchecked in some communities in order to provide "necessary protection"? Where does it end?
Very cool input. And glad to hear you were able to keep your family safe on both occasions.
I'm not arguing that a gun can't be a useful tool. In the right situation, it absolutely has a place. But that's not justification for handing them out like candy...
I agree...there needs to be a more comprehensive background check system.
But, having had my feet (at least one foot) in the security industry for more than two decades, the one thing that is clear is that criminals and those unable to legally get weapons will still be able to do so. Also, they are not that hard to make.
There was a great story done on that by one of the major networks a few years ago...they showed how many 3rd world countries have learned to make fairly good knock offs of the AK family using wood fires and bellows to create the metal parts.
The awful reality is that the bad guys and girls will always find a way to beat the system...we (citizens of the world) are ultimately responsible to protect ourselves and loved ones...the reality for me is that I am getting too slow and tired to defend myself (or others) with a stick or knife.
Yes, at the very least.
This argument seems to pop up a lot. Yes, bad people will always find a way to do bad things, but simple logic dictates that the harder you make something, the less people will be inclined to do it.
There's no black and white answer that will solve everything. That's why you need to play the odds. Statistics show time and time again that guns cause problems far more often than they create solutions for the average American. Make them illegal, and yes... you will lose some of those solutions; but you'll also rid the country of far more problems. Not only that, but you'll create opportunities for people to discover newer, safer solutions!
I'm a big believer in self-fulfilling prophecies. As long as you live in a place where the majority of people feel like they need to own a gun to defend themselves, your reality will reflect that belief.
Not an argument friend. Just a cold, hard fact.
I'm a big believer in unintended consequences. Draft a bill restricting gun rights and many citizens will rush to purchase a gun with no understanding of how to use or store firearms. The 34 to one problem you mentioned earlier is precipitated by such gun owners. The more unseasoned, uncommitted gun owners we have, the more likely for gun theft and black market transactions to flourish. That is why I concluded that the only logical answer to your 34-1 dilemma is for gun owners to act responsibly, and stow their firearms securely. Putting US citizens in a crunch, making them think their gun rights are in jeopardy, might flood the market with rush purchases and make firearms more accessible in the long run to those who you don't want to possess them. It might also make people in dire economic straits more likely to consider purchasing a gun to sell on the black market. I don't know what all the unintended consequences would be, but don't expect many not to arise from even the proposal of further legislation. Perhaps sound legislation can be enacted. But it must be brought forth with much care and consideration. There is no easy fix.
And yet it's a useless fact. The sky is blue... water is wet... bad people do bad things. So what? That alone should stop us from taking action?
Big problems are never easy to fix. There will be blow-back. There will be unintended consequences. But the end result is worth it.
It's not enough to kindly ask everyone to "please use and stow your guns responsibly". That's not even a new solution; it's status quo.
Well, that is your opinion...like sphincters...we all have at least one...dozens actually!!!
I'm moving on now Bernard...interesting side bar to domaining but it's back to work for me!
I don’t see any reason NOT to suspect the unintended consequences to outweigh the intended consequences. I think quite the opposite would result. But I’m open to reading any alternative hypotheses you might put forward. My mind can be changed. But for any change of mind, I would rely only on hypotheses based on realism, not idealism.
Edited that first line
If you can show me all the useful ways that fact can be applied, I'm all ears. Until then, using it as justification for needing guns doesn't cut it.
Reporter: "Hey Donald, why are we spending $100 billion to double our nuclear arsenal?"
Donald: "Bad people!"
Reporter: "Oh yeah! We forgot about them. Carry on."
Here, you can read about how tougher gun laws worked out for four other countries:
That’s it? A link that describes how it has worked for other nations?
How about explaining specifically:
What your proposed legislation would entail
How it would affect the rate of gun violence in cities where the rates of gun violence are the highest. Let’s start with Chicago.
What blowback might be received from gun rights advocates and how that would be dealt with on a large scale.
Every nation is different, with different demographics, cultures, histories, etc. That third bullet point should not be overlooked. One should not underestimate the degree to which gun rights advocates are committed to their cause, and the amount of distrust they possess in their government. The countries named in the article were not founded as a consequence of violent revolt by an armed populace in the way the US was. This is a unique aspect of our history and gun rights are tightly aligned with this.
I think it best to give this thread a break. I’ve enjoyed it. Thank you for engaging.
The U.S. was formed 250 years ago. How on earth does that have any bearing on today's Americans and whether or not they should own guns? Germany and Japan have experienced horrible violence in their countries far more recently than the U.S. Heck, it was only 80 years ago that Hitler was rounding people up based on religion and ethnicity. Shouldn't Germans have way more fear and distrust of government than Americans?
How do I specifically explain proposed legislation? I'm not a lawyer.
How do I explain how rates of gun violence would be affected? I'm not a statistician.
How do I explain large-scale blowback risks and how to deal with them? I'm not a game theorist.
There are very qualified people in America who are being paid to do this very work. But before they do, the population and government need to decide to at least explore the possibilities. They need to recognize that there is a problem. And that is what we're debating here: IF there is a problem.
I've shown you there is a problem.
I've shown you why there is a problem.
I've shown you how other countries have solved similar problems.
Unless you have factual arguments that counter what I've presented (and not subjective musings based on opinion and incomplete logic), then ending the discussion is a very good idea.
Separate names with a comma.