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]

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.

Did you mean to quote someone else...?

 

[Keith]

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.

To use a term like “mental health” is an illusion created by organizations like the NRA. They don’t want you to realize that people simply kill people with guns, because they can.

If you look at most of these mass shooters, they aren’t insane, in medical terms. They’re crazy, because anyone who shoots someone else is clearly lost. But, they are all sane enough to buy weapons and unlimited amounts of ammo. So let’s not pretend we have people that are legitimately or legally insane, running around shooting up schools. That’s not what’s happening here.

People are dying in mass amounts due to drugs so we make strict laws. People are dying in mass amounts due to guns and we make them easily accessible. Makes no sense.

 

[Bernard Wright]

The first two are fine proposals Joe. At 25 the brain is fully-developed, as I’m sure you know. There’s a case to be made for a 25-age minimum. I’d be interested to read others’ opinions on this if they’d weigh in.

Phase 3 is already in effect today.

What I am gaining by shooting down ideas is two-fold. Hopefully I am continuing the conversation toward specific and good ideas. And hopefully I am exposing the complexity of a problem that cannot be met with “just try something”. There is much to lose if we get this wrong.

 

[Keith]

The first two are fine proposals Joe. At 25 the brain is fully-developed, as I’m sure you know. There’s a case to be made for a 25-age minimum. I’d be interested to read others’ opinions on this if they’d weigh in.

Phase 3 is already in effect today.

What I am gaining by shooting down ideas is two-fold. Hopefully I am continuing the conversation toward specific and good ideas. And hopefully I am exposing the complexity of a problem that cannot be met with “just try something”. There is much to lose if we get this wrong.

What’s to lose? Are you proposing that less guns will result in more deaths?

We have tried guns with relaxed policy and it doesn’t work. What we haven’t tried is eliminating guns. Why do you think people are so afraid to try the opposite of what isn’t working? It’s because the NRA knows less guns are the solution. But less guns, less members, less money, less power...

 

[Bernard Wright]

An amendment to phase 2 though. Sub-25 year-olds would be granted gun rights upon completion of the course proposed in phase 1.

 

[Bernard Wright]

Ok Keith. Eliminate the guns. Problem solved. End thread.

 

[Keith]

Ok Keith. Eliminate the guns. Problem solved. End thread.

Do you treat a snake bite with more venom or anti venom? Ok...

 

[Bernard Wright]

Do you treat a snake bite with more venom or anti venom? Ok...

If you would prefer analogies, here is one. What do you do when your town is overrun with aggressive birds? Bring in more birds. It’s counterintuitive when the goal is to decrease the number of birds, but it works.

https://www.courierpostonline.com/s...lls-from-beach-falcons-hawks-owls/1920153001/

 

[Keith]

Btw, I seen a kid drowning in a tub. My solution was to add more water. I could’ve pulled the plug and removed the threat but we’re all entitled to water.

 

[Joe N]

Phase 3 is already in effect today.

What I am gaining by shooting down ideas is two-fold. Hopefully I am continuing the conversation toward specific and good ideas. And hopefully I am exposing the complexity of a problem that cannot be met with “just try something”. There is much to lose if we get this wrong.

I'm talking about major restrictions, and at the national level. In Canada, assault rifles can only be in three places: safe in your home, at the shooting range, or in your car on the way to the range.

It's fine to refine ideas, but try to provide some of your own as well.

 

[Bernard Wright]

I think your ideas are well-intentioned, but I don’t know whether they’d make a much of dent in the problem of gun violence. Any thoughts as to how they would?

 

[Joe N]

I think your ideas are well-intentioned, but I don’t know whether they’d make a much of dent in the problem of gun violence. Any thoughts as to how they would?

How about you? What ideas do you think could make a dent?

 

[Bernard Wright]

I still think phase 1 is the best we can do at this point in time. The situation is too fragile to do much more. Too many responsible gun owners, who wouldn't do harm with their weapons, would be put to the test if any legislation were to threaten their rights. And many of those gun owners are unified in their steadfast commitment to their belief in those rights. Distrust in the government is on the rise in the US. Recent legal cases and news stories are replete with reasons to distrust the "powers that be". Any law that could even be perceived as an attempt by the government to restrict the powers and rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves could result in widespread chaos and civil unrest, at the very least.

Specifically, regarding rifles, and assuming you mean to distinguish them from handguns, I'm sure you are aware that it is the handgun that is more lethal in the US. And it is much easier to conceal. So we are back at game theory; the prisoner's dilemma. If the criminal has the gun, the law-abiding citizen is in a position of weakness and it might cost him/her his life. Do keep in mind that laws and government exist to serve the people. If enough such cases exist whereby the victim was abiding by this strict law, citizens would begin to question their government's interest and ability to serve its law-abiding citizens. And again, this sentiment is actually already very much on the rise. So, back to phase 1. I think it's a good idea.

 

[D Haynes]

To use a term like “mental health” is an illusion created by organizations like the NRA. They don’t want you to realize that people simply kill people with guns, because they can.

If you look at most of these mass shooters, they aren’t insane, in medical terms. They’re crazy, because anyone who shoots someone else is clearly lost. But, they are all sane enough to buy weapons and unlimited amounts of ammo. So let’s not pretend we have people that are legitimately or legally insane, running around shooting up schools. That’s not what’s happening here.

People are dying in mass amounts due to drugs so we make strict laws. People are dying in mass amounts due to guns and we make them easily accessible. Makes no sense.

The shooters might not be certified insane but they clearly aren't right because a level headed person wouldnt carry out such acts. Its not a case of people walking around talking to people that aren't there and listening to voices in their head, that's the stereotypical mental heath issue. It's people that are broken down over months or years by little things happening to them in their day to day lives that they don't know how to deal with. That a mental heath issue too just as much as a raving loonatic.

I completely agree with you that guns should not be made readily available to people, the problem is that there are now so many that taking them all away is an impossible task. So I think we have to accept that guns are alway going to be there so the reason people choose to use them should be the main focus.

 

[Keith]

The shooters might not be certified insane but they clearly aren't right because a level headed person wouldnt carry out such acts. Its not a case of people walking around talking to people that aren't there and listening to voices in their head, that's the stereotypical mental heath issue. It's people that are broken down over months or years by little things happening to them in their day to day lives that they don't know how to deal with. That a mental heath issue too just as much as a raving loonatic.

I completely agree with you that guns should not be made readily available to people, the problem is that there are now so many that taking them all away is an impossible task. So I think we have to accept that guns are alway going to be there so the reason people choose to use them should be the main focus.

We can’t remove all of the drugs in circulation but we have laws making many substances illegal. Explain the difference with guns please.

 

[Bernard Wright]

There’s actually an argument to be made for less-restrictive drug laws as well. Mexico’s cartels thrive on the black market that exists because of our drug laws. The laws aren’t clearly a net positive IMO. More-important than strict laws is proper parenting. We could take the gun convo there. That’s part of the real solution, really.

 

[D Haynes]

We can’t remove all of the drugs in circulation but we have laws making many substances illegal. Explain the difference with guns please.

Drugs haven't been legal for a long time where as guns have always been a "right" in America. Also a lot of drugs help a lot of people. Once something is at saturation point its much harder to go back. Also its highly likely that most drugs will be legalised eventually. I could also argue that the laws against drugs make no difference whatsoever to people that want to take them the same as laws against guns will make no difference to people who decide to shoot others.

Again, I completely agree with you that guns should not be readily available to people but I think we have to be realistic given the current situation.

 

[Bernard Wright]

Thanks Joe, for turning this into a productive discussion.

Keith, if the differences between the impacts drugs and guns have on a society are not inherently apparent, I think you should think about the issue a bit more deeply. Or not, but please don’t hijack the thread.

 

[Keith]

Thanks Joe, for turning this into a productive discussion.

Keith, if the differences between the impacts drugs and guns have on a society are not inherently apparent, I think you should think about the issue a bit more deeply. Or not, but please don’t hijack the thread.

It’s a comparison.

The point is, one thing is outlawed because it may harm the individual at their own hand. Another is very legal and causes harm to individuals by the hands of others.

At the very least, logic would say to reverse the two.

 

[oldtimer]

Nice discussion going on here, I believe the same technology that has given us more and more powerful guns will eventually help solve the gun problem in the near future. In a few years we might have Armed Security Robots and Drones roaming around in shopping malls and schools or any other place that there is a tendency for mass shooting and violence, so people might not need to carry guns with them everywhere anymore. IMO

 

[Keith]

so people might not need to carry guns with them everywhere anymore. IMO

Do people do that now? I’ve never owned a gun in my life. I’ve also never knew a family member or friend who used a gun for protection.

The idea that guns are a necessity for protection is flat out wrong. Tell me you want to hunt or like to shoot targets but please don’t say you feel threatened so you need weapons.

 

[oldtimer]

I see people with guns (carrying openly) every time I go to Walmart, Off course that’s an okay thing here in Texas where I live.

As for hunting, I respect the fact that some people like to hunt for food, but I hope that a day comes that we stop killing animals just for the fun of it. When I watch hunting programs on TV and I see those people get overwhelmed with joy at bringing down a magnificent animal it kind of makes me sad, there should not be so much joy in killing other god's creatures. IMO

 

[oldtimer]

Eventually guns might become intelligent enough that they can decide whether it’s okay to go off or not depending on where and at whom they are pointed at and also by being able to analyze what the emotional state and intent of the shooter is, although that might be a little too far fetched, but then if everything around us is going to get smart soon why not the gun too. But then if things are going to become so advanced in the future it seems that we might be able to discover a way to put an end to all violence altogether (after all violence starts with a thought and soon our thoughts could be being controlled and reprogrammed by AI). IMO

 

[HotKey]

Availability is a massive part of the issue too. Strictly controlled outlets, as we have here in Canada, would help curb who can own what, and ultimately help reduce the psycho shooters.

No one has a right to own a firearm. Especially with the sorry excuse of "self defense". Encourage boxing, or martial arts.

But everyone has a right to prove their competency and ability to own a firearm. Proper licensing, strict screening. Maybe consider not selling firearms at the same locations where beer or toys are sold. Rocket science, I tell ya.

How courageous we are, aren't we? We can place our finger on a trigger, and pull. My oh my, aren't we warriors. It is our right to make that bullet fly, yes it is.

Criminals using firearms lack the basic societal responsibilities. This is why they are criminals. With all having the same rights and access, however, the line between law-abiders and the criminals becomes way too easy to cross. And it's a one-way street once you do cross, no turning back.

We we wrong when we made guns a sport. And now paying dearly for it, likely forever. When we lose our own children, rather than reading about someone else's, will we still blind ourselves with excuses?

 

[oldtimer]

As the party leaders in China are getting ready to start a massacre (mass shooting) in Hong Kong and kill thousands of innocent people just to keep themselves in power it makes one wonder if it might be necessary for people to be fully armed so that they can protect themselves not only against criminals, but also against ruthless and extremist government factions. IMO