A Sensible Approach to Reducing Gun Violence

[raildogg]

I saw a local newspaper article last week that people are buying guns at a record pace and that many local gun shops are packed full of customers. This is rather interesting. So a month or so after the shooting in Connecticut, instead of asking ourselves how can we fix problems or becomes better people, we are out buying more guns? I don't get it.

Are people that scared? Are they that paranoid? Are they that angry?

I have nothing against guns but I do believe that they represent human's violent nature, and it is only getting more violent. More gun laws are not needed since the ones who want access to a gun will find a way. What is needed is for people to realize that it is them who is the problem, not the gun. Their desire to have one in the first place is the problem.

 

[HumblePie]

I saw a local newspaper article last week that people are buying guns at a record pace and that many local gun shops are packed full of customers. This is rather interesting. So a month or so after the shooting in Connecticut, instead of asking ourselves how can we fix problems or becomes better people, we are out buying more guns? I don't get it.

Are people that scared? Are they that paranoid? Are they that angry?

I have nothing against guns but I do believe that they represent human's violent nature, and it is only getting more violent. More gun laws are not needed since the ones who want access to a gun will find a way. What is needed is for people to realize that it is them who is the problem, not the gun. Their desire to have one in the first place is the problem.

And that is where your negative attitude is incorrect. Guns are meant to preserve and save lives. Responsible gun use saves more lives every day then they destroy. A gun is a tool, and like any tool can be used for good or bad applications. Your embodiment of fear into an animate object is part of the problem.

Guns allow the weak, the old, the young, and those otherwise unable to defend themselves to be able to do so. Without guns, people are at the mercy of those with might and seeking to be that embodiment that you fear.

It's a difference of perspective. You unfortunately have been ingrained with a negative perspective of an animate object when there is clearly another way to view it.

 

[raildogg]

And that is where your negative attitude is incorrect. Guns are meant to preserve and save lives. Responsible gun use saves more lives every day then they destroy. A gun is a tool, and like any tool can be used for good or bad applications. Your embodiment of fear into an animate object is part of the problem.

Guns allow the weak, the old, the young, and those otherwise unable to defend themselves to be able to do so. Without guns, people are at the mercy of those with might and seeking to be that embodiment that you fear.

It's a difference of perspective. You unfortunately have been ingrained with a negative perspective of an animate object when there is clearly another way to view it.

Guns are a tool, yes. That is why I did not blame the gun but the violent nature in human beings. It is them who create and use them. Before it was bows and arrows, same thing. So according to you, the answer is not to become better people, but to get more guns? So if everyone had a gun, would there be a reduction in violence?

Even if there was, it is extremely telling that we would have to go to such drastic steps to reduce violence. But since human beings are creating rules and regulations for everything we do, forcing us to buy a gun would not be too wild an idea.

 

[WackyDan]

Way to play the victim.

Did you consider he wasn't talking about you? Have you read the responses he's been getting aside from yours?

He used "non-thinkers" Plural. Lots of people in the discussion here.

 

[HumblePie]

Guns are a tool, yes. That is why I did not blame the gun but the violent nature in human beings. It is them who create and use them. Before it was bows and arrows, same thing. So according to you, the answer is not to become better people, but to get more guns?

Becoming a better people is certainly a lofty goal. But one that will not come quickly. In reality, there are many factors of why someone turns to violence and/or crime. Education, socioeconomics, economic standing, upbringing, culture, and mental illness. As a society we have been working on many of these aspects and it has shown through record keeping. US society has been on a massive downward swing of violent crime over the last several decades.

Even still, those changes are never going to happen over night nor will any human society ever be free of crime and violence. Especially considering that all humans have mental illness in our genetics to some degree that will get passed on. Unless we do something like the movie GATACA to remove all that somehow. As such, the only safe guard to stopping a violent man with a gun that intent on doing harm is having a good guy (preferably more than 1) with a guy there ready to stop them. This is why we call the police as a society. We don't issue fluffy pink stuffed animals to our police and ask them to stop violent people intent on hurting others. If police require guns to stop bad guys then so would an ordinary citizen. It is as simple as that.

We don't live in a perfect world and it will never be perfect. As such, guns are there to safe guard the weak, the old, the young, the infirmed, and those who would otherwise be defenseless.

 

[WackyDan]

What's the history of "bump fire attachments" ? I understand the techniques probably been around for a long time, but the video with the specific device isn't very old. Have devices designed to improve bump firing been marketed for a long time ?

Because if not, that seems like it might be a factor in why there's no evidence.

One thing I'd like to know more about concerning the Sandy Hook shooting is how so many lives were lost in such a short period of time, and why some or maybe many victims had so many wounds. Has anyone ever come across any kind of ballistics report about how many shots were fired and over what period of time ?

I'm assuming there's nothing particular to the weapon used so there's no appropriate change in gun restrictions that would have changed anything; except maybe the magazine capacity.

I used my first bump fire attachment over twenty years ago. They weren't anything new back then either.

As for Sandy Hook death count... and I hate to call it that. You have a cluster of humans in a room.. You figure 20 kids per classroom? I think the majority of the deaths were from one class... So it isn't hard to figure out how someone is able to kill that number of people in so short of time.. A few minutes at best.. Sequestered students, with only one adult, and those students being too young to react in a defensive way or even comprehend what was happening.

As for the reports... The media says the AR was used, the FBI is saying handguns... there seems to be some weird sort of disconnect there.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

As for the reports... The media says the AR was used, the FBI is saying handguns... there seems to be some weird sort of disconnect there.

The medical examiner confirmed more than a month ago that each of the victims was shot repeatedly with a rifle - see, e.g., http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout...-victims-died-multiple-gunshot-211722237.html

 

[HendrixFan]

See how they work? You can see it in this and every thread on the subject. NO COMPROMISE! You can see the laws that are being proposed, you can see their end goal. NO COMPROMISE. None, there will be NO compromise to their agenda.

I wish you would realize this sort of extremist reaction is exactly why "your side" is losing in Congress now and why gun legislation over the next 50 years will go in exactly the opposite direction you want it to. The crazier and more unflinching the response to real sensible actions under the guise of avoiding a slippery slope is a losing proposition.

 

[spidey07]

I wish you would realize this sort of extremist reaction is exactly why "your side" is losing in Congress now and why gun legislation over the next 50 years will go in exactly the opposite direction you want it to. The crazier and more unflinching the response to real sensible actions under the guise of avoiding a slippery slope is a losing proposition.

Negative. Even the democrats know not to vote for any gun legislation. The political cost of doing so is the end of their career. The emotional side to sandy hook is dying down and now the real reasons for the gun grabbers agenda are being shown.

Careful there liberal, I can see your wolf fur under that "common reasonable gun safety laws" sheep skin.

No compromise, there can be NO compromise.

Supporting our god given rights, guaranteed by the Constitution, is not extremist at all. It is downright AMERICAN!

 

[jpeyton]

why gun legislation over the next 50 years will go in exactly the opposite direction you want it to.

What else does your crystal ball say? Predicting the next 50 years is quite a feat. Does it run in the family, because I'm curious if anything your father predicted in 1963 has come to pass?

Since the AWB expired, gun legislation has, if anything, gone largely in the way of gun rights advocates. Obama, to date, has officially supported more pro-gun measures than anti-gun measures (we'll see if this latest call for an AWB ever materializes; until then, my statement is true).

The proliferation of firearms in this country is higher than ever.

There's a nice 30+ seat firewall in the House of Representatives that will block any "bans", so I'm with spidey on this one.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

This self-defeating extremist reaction reminds me a lot of the GOP primarying itself out of a possible senate takeover during the last few years.

I don't think anything will happen immediately, but in the long run, HendrixFan is probably correct. And if he is, it will be in part because of unreasonable people who apparently care more about acting macho than actually protecting their gun rights.

 

[HendrixFan]

What else does your crystal ball say? Predicting the next 50 years is quite a feat. Does it run in the family, because I'm curious if anything your father predicted in 1963 has come to pass?

I don't know my father. Tough to answer.

I'm saying this scorched earth approach to listening to a substantial portion of the voting public is not a good approach for winning things. They can block all they want now, as has been their obstructionist approach for the last four years. All they are doing is positioning themselves as the party that ignores the world as it marches on.

As a gun rights advocate, you should be ashamed at what the right is doing to screw up whatever public goodwill you would otherwise have.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The way this thread has turned out is particularly disappointing to someone who has spent the last month trying to convince a whole lot of liberals that their stereotyping of members of the gun culture as unreasonable, out-of-touch, dangerous extremists was wrong. I still think that stereotyping is indefensible, but as Hendrix says, you folks are playing the short game here, and you're going to lose the long game.

 

[HendrixFan]

Negative. Even the democrats know not to vote for any gun legislation. The political cost of doing so is the end of their career. The emotional side to sandy hook is dying down and now the real reasons for the gun grabbers agenda are being shown.

You said pretty much the same thing about a number of so-called "decisive" issues over the last four years. The political cost was only for the obstructionist party.

 

[HumblePie]

This self-defeating extremist reaction reminds me a lot of the GOP primarying itself out of a possible senate takeover during the last few years.

I don't think anything will happen immediately, but in the long run, HendrixFan is probably correct. And if he is, it will be in part because of unreasonable people who apparently care more about acting macho than actually protecting their gun rights.

And this was the kind of post I was referring to with mine. Ad hoc emotional appeal and slander.

Your OP made several proposals. Many of which don't pass that 2 part litmus test I posted previously. Some do. Many have argued you as to why those that don't pass the litmus test are not good proposals, but then you resort to posts like these to dismiss all logical counter arguments. This is a bad form of debate you have going on here by your methods. Make proposals and when people posts why they wouldn't work trying to educate yourself as to the downsides and counter arguments. Then either revamp the proposal or toss it out if it's too grossly in to the crap zone.

I'm not going to go through your entire list because many, like Wackydan, have thoroughly done so already with great arguments as to why most of your proposals have no place as actual legislation.

 

[HendrixFan]

The way this thread has turned out is particularly disappointing to someone who has spent the last month trying to convince a whole lot of liberals that their stereotyping of members of the gun culture as unreasonable, out-of-touch, dangerous extremists was wrong. I still think that stereotyping is indefensible, but as Hendrix says, you folks are playing the short game here, and you're going to lose the long game.

In one of the other gun threads I explained my position, a few times quite directly. I'm in the heart of Texas and guns are quite prevalent here. I go out with friends who have their CCL and use it everywhere we go. I have no dog in the hunt personally, I have no need or desire for a gun.

I view most of this gun control back and forth as an outside viewer for the most part. And what I see from that perspective is that only one side is able to make progress while being unreasonable. That is because the overall climate and direction is on their side. The opposing side cannot be unreasonable and expect to make progress. They have to be more sensible and calculating, lest they give credence to the notion of "gun nuts".

Their is certainly a winning play for the gun rights side, but there are too many spideys that speak up for them to be effective.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

It would surprise me to see federal gun laws change materially, as they relate to the legality of particular weapons, in the foreseeable future. At most I could imagine (not now but at some point in the future) some iteration of the Assault Weapons Ban coming back, but that is certainly not on the horizon anytime soon.

The NRA has done a great job whipping people into a frenzy about the idea of a gun ban over the President's first term, despite the fact that he has taken no action to advance any such thing.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

And this was the kind of post I was referring to with mine. Ad hoc emotional appeal and slander.

What "slander"? That I used the word "extreme"? Sorry, I think people shouting "NO COMPROMISE" is by definition extreme.

Many have argued you as to why those that don't pass the litmus test are not good proposals, but then you resort to posts like these to dismiss all logical counter arguments.

I absolutely have not done that. I have not responded to every comment, because if I did, I'd waste even more hours on this than I already have. That doesn't mean I have dismissed those counterarguments.

The post I made about extremism was directed only at the people who shout "Molon Labe!" at everything.

Make proposals and when people posts why they wouldn't work trying to educate yourself as to the downsides and counter arguments. Then either revamp the proposal or toss it out if it's too grossly in to the crap zone.

If you have a specific one you'd like to discuss (except for the bump firing stuff, which has been done to death), then I'd be happy to discuss it.

 

[jpeyton]

As I said, we're willing to compromise on legislation that has nothing to do with bans.

When you try to ban firearms, magazines, and accessories based on cosmetics and emotional appeals, you will lose the short and long game. It doesn't matter if you're liberal or conservative, hard data has no bias (I'm a Nate Silver groupie, I love hard data). There is simply no room for compromise on ban-related legislation.

This approach is already working.

 

[HumblePie]

As I said, we're willing to compromise on legislation that has nothing to do with bans.

When you try to ban firearms, magazines, and accessories based on cosmetics and emotional appeals, you will lose the short and long game. It doesn't matter if you're liberal or conservative, hard data has no bias. There is simply no room for compromise on ban-related legislation.

This because it doesn't pass the litmus test.

To the OP, if you want to present gun law proposals then this is template layout you should use.

Here is a proposal: <enter proposal>.
I can not see where it infringes upon any 2nd amendment right to own. But if I missed how it can infringe please enlighten me.
Here is where I view the impacts of how it will help: <insert bullet points concerning impacts versus costs with a cost analysis comparison>



If you can go back do that with all your proposal and start from scratch you will THEN be bringing "sensible" gun law proposals to the table. One that we can then compromise by looking at the cost analysis of implementation. It's really a simple concept that any project manager can understand. You have your absolute scope requirements, the objective you are seeking to obtain, and the proposals to reach a realized goal.

 

[HendrixFan]

As I said, we're willing to compromise on legislation that has nothing to do with bans.

When you try to ban firearms, magazines, and accessories based on cosmetics and emotional appeals, you will lose the short and long game. It doesn't matter if you're liberal or conservative, hard data has no bias (I'm a Nate Silver groupie, I love hard data). There is simply no room for compromise on ban-related legislation.

This approach is already working.

In general the gap between rural and urban areas and guns couldn't be wider. The usage determines the attitude towards guns, and the populations' mentality is developed accordingly. Nobody hunts in NYC, nobody gangbangs in VT.

Losing short term games in gun control only allows for further restrictive gun control laws to compensate for the lack of long term gains. If the gun rights groups helped the gun control groups actually draft realistic proposals instead of NO COMPROMISE! then everyone will be better off.

When you have someone from KY getting worked up over legislation in NYC that won't be declared unconstitutional and has ZERO bearing on any gun activities in KY you waste goodwill. National legislation will always lag state and local legislation on gun laws due to the enormous amount of rural representation in the Senate.

If the gun rights advocates would try to keep the NRA, Fox News and spideys of the world on a short leash they would win alot more battles. The NO COMPROMISE! attitude is not helping.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

This because it doesn't pass the litmus test.

To the OP, if you want to present gun law proposals then this is template layout you should use.

Here is a proposal: <enter proposal>.
I can not see where it infringes upon any 2nd amendment right to own. But if I missed how it can infringe please enlighten me.
Here is where I view the impacts of how it will help: <insert bullet points concerning impacts versus costs with a cost analysis comparison>



If you can go back do that with all your proposal and start from scratch you will THEN be bringing "sensible" gun law proposals to the table. One that we can then compromise by looking at the cost analysis of implementation. It's really a simple concept that any project manager can understand. You have your absolute scope requirements, the objective you are seeking to obtain, and the proposals to reach a realized goal.

Sure, would you like to me to go get your drycleaning as well? 🙄

I wrote this because I had been involved in a lot of political discussions on this issue, mostly on the ANTI gun control side. I spent hours thinking about what I thought would be good ideas, researching various ideas from other sources, and laying it out in a digestible manner.

I did it because I hadn't seen anyone else try to do this, and I thought it would be valuable. I don't get paid for this. Asking me to spend hours of additional work to justify your arbitrary standards is beyond ludicrous.

You know what? I posted this here, and also on a couple of sites that are mostly left-leaning. Most lefties want to see significantly more gun controls and bans. But my list is mostly NOT focused on gun bans. It has some things that I figured would piss off righties, and some things that would piss off lefties.

But you know what I've observed? It's only the right-wingers that are going off the rails. The lefties here probably dislike some of what I'm proposing, and most of them don't think it goes far enough. But they aren't making demands, shrieking "NO COMPROMISE" and generally carrying on like petulant children. That's not happening with the lefties at the other sites either.

My list includes, among other things, a prohibition against AWBs and even dismantling existing ones. Are people on the left screaming and howling about that?

It's only the right-wingers doing this, behaving in the exact same manner I have been trying to tell people on the left they shouldn't accuse gun owners of doing.

Anyone who tries to portray me as a leftist or a gun grabber is off their chump. Not only have I been arguing in favor of RKBA, here and elsewhere, I've been fighting against people on the left stereotyping gun owners.

Here's something I wrote on another forum just yesterday:

I've finally figured out what this non-stop villification of gun owners reminds me of most -- the way the right responded after 9/11.

In both cases, those who perceive there to be a problem make an effort to generalize from specific instances, and are quick to speculate and put out innuendo without evidence.

But more than that -- both sides are attacking the culture they consider poisonous. It wasn't a few bad Muslims who didn't represent all of them -- it was that Islam was evil, and here, look in their book, it proves it.

And now, same thing with gun owners -- it's not a few crazies or irresponsible people, it's the fault of the "gun culture" and the NRA and any other group that can be easily demonized.

On this same forum I have literally dozens of posts defending the second amendment, arguing against gun bans, and again, especially, defending members of the gun culture, even though I'm not one myself.

My main takeaway from this thread is that the far right is a lot more like how my opponents have described them than the way I have tried to defend them.

So, in closing, piss off. I will be asking for this thread to be closed.

 

[HumblePie]

Hey charles, if you don't want to do additional work it's no sweat off my nose. Unless someone proposes new gun legislation nothing is going to change. But it is pretty worthless to present new proposals in a manner that is going to turn of quite a few people automatically because you didn't apply the basic litmus test I have given.

If you don't want to go back and reformat the proposals it isn't a big deal. As many people here have already dissected your proposals for their possible merits in a very logic and laid out fashion. They've done your work for you.

I'm just giving you the reason why you are seeing some people like spidey shouting "NO COMPROMISE!" because too many of your proposals smack of 2nd Amendment infringement without providing any real benefit to society beyond a feel good measure. Many people of spidey's mentality will read only one such proposal and dismiss everything else you have to say. I'm sad to say it, but it's the truth. However, that doesn't mean your proposals are all automatically sensible just because you proposed them. Nor have many of your arguments here been the most logical when others have present very logic counter arguments to your proposals.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Some people apparently felt cheated out of the right to respond to me, so I asked Perk to reopen the thread and he has kindly agreed.

Go for it.

 

[Incorruptible]

What "slander"? That I used the word "extreme"? Sorry, I think people shouting "NO COMPROMISE" is by definition extreme.

No they aren't, When people are trying to take away their 2nd Amendment rights they have every right to be angry and smack down those who spread this. People should not have their freedom violated!