Can we have an honest, respectful discussion about guns in America?

"being necessary to the security of a FREE State"

Not the state but a free state. The inclusion of the word free by Madison was not an accident. Its a direct reference to the defence frome tyranny of the state.

 

It sounds as if you are largely resigned to the astronomical level of firearm fatalities in the United States. Your suggestion that we apply the safeguards designed to reduce automotive killings to guns killings has merit, however. Both contrivances are subject to abuse, neither is amenable to complete eradication of the harm they inflict, yet sensible societal precautions can reduce the carnage in both cases. "How do we treat the use of automobiles in the United States?" is an apt question.

 

I'm never impressed when someone tells me their personal assessment or opinion outweighs the facts.
When you leave the country in a panic as we did in Vietnam, you've had you butt kicked.

 

And that is why tyrants always seize all the guns.

 

Please understand that I hold your opinions, which I have read many of, in the lowest esteem. Some people just don't get it often enough to give theri opinions any weight at all, just because of the source. Sadly, that seems to bee the case here.

 

You draw erroneous conclusions about other peoples beliefs in order to back up your own arguments?
Nobody likes the violence, nobody thinks it can't be changed. HOW in the question, and Stupidly is not the answer.
If you can't come up with a method that works, and doesn't create more problems than it solves, you do not have an answer.

The GC crowd does not have an answer to the problem you complain of- but won't look to anything else. That is being resigned, and that tells me that irrational fear is the motive. They can't think about other options because the paranoia about anyone owning a gun controls their thinking. The movement is a mental box, and those in it can't think any other way. IF they could, it would be possible to have an "Honest, respectful discussion"... Not a discussion about guns- but a discussion about the problems and solutions. Your very questions limits the discussion you want to guns; you have already decided that what ever is done will apply to guns. Not crazy, unbalanced killers- guns. It's a locked mindset, a self induced limitation for these people.

Now I told you what i Felt the approach should be, and there is no question that if we find a way to isolate the mentally unstable that many of the mass killings over the last decade or two would never have happened at all. You seem to feel if one life is saved, it is worth imposing more laws of millions of people in an area already highly regulated.

Eliminating the death toll by other means than gun control seems to have less appeal to you than a small "mitigation" factor that you can't quantify or demonstrate.
Time to think outside that box.

 

Your citing America's approach to private automobiles is an apt one, and bears serious consideration. I'm sure we need not surrender to the astronomical level of firearm fatalities. We can do better!

 

I mention Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc to point out that your claim that superior technology is the winning hand. It is not. Every opponent has weaknesses and strengths, a smart opponent will avoid the strengths and take advantage of the weaknesses.

That applies to the "suburbs" as well.

The idea that the USA govt will just carpet bomb all areas of the nation that resist, revolt, secede, is ridiculous.

 

It is then with great irony I remind you that cars kill more people than guns.

 

We can do better by banning cars.

 

When things are wrong, it's common for people to focus on symptoms rather than causes. But as any engineer, doctor or generally logical person knows- treating symptoms is just a patch, not a cure. Culture- the way people think, act, the values they hold are the fundamental sources of instability. IF you feel you are in charge of your life and can handle what ever happens, you are independent and strong- and there is no need to control others to feel secure. IF you are frustrated and cannot find a way to control your life, the resulting misery becomes something done to you by others, be it individuals or the system- and you only alternative is to control them. If you can't control them to get relief, you feel compelled to punish them- and sometimes that means thinking you should kill them all.

We are nourishing the latter mindset, teaching dependence, literally cultivating and rewarding it- promising things we can't possibly provide and raising increasingly dependent and insecure children. That is the way our culture is evolving, and we are to blame.

No politician wants to tell people to grow up, to accept responsibility for themselves-- because it isn't politically popular with a large enough segment of society. Politicians must have votes, and to get them they know that they must tell people what they want to hear. The consequences are devastating, slowly degrading the spirit of Americans, eroding the very strength that made the nation great in the first place. Fewer and fewer people are willing to step up to the plate as time passes. Those that do are often highly successful- and their reward is being hated for it. JFK's famous comment "Ask not what your country can do for you- Ask what you can do for your country". Makes no sense to most people today.

We have grandparents all over the country raising their own grandchildren, because their children just can't cut it. We have 50 years old children living with their parents, who still won't make their beds in the morning or pick up after themselves. In short- the fabric of our society is steadily weakening from lack of self-respect and personal responsibility. While so many are willing to be dependent, those same people resent being dependent- and that means anger. Since they don't understand how their own life choices have controlled their situation, it is all somebody elses fault. That is the disease behind the symptoms of violence. It's a much bigger problem than gun control, or drug control, because those too are highly related to the same source- decaying culture.

Fix the disease and you automatically relieve the symptoms. To do that, leaders need to acknowledge the disease. They need to make it popular and rewarding to be responsible, be respectable, be honorable, be productive. Seems nobody wants to go there- too risky because the next election is never far away.

Think on that- on how our culture is enabling and growing the mentality that produces all these evils... and how we will ever escape them if we don't address the source..

No question we could do better- IF we will. It starts with everyone- anyone, individually- deciding that they will not be part of the problem, take full responsibility for their own choices and positions in life. IF.

If you think gun control is hard to sell, try convincing people to take responsibility for their own lives.

 

Do you imagine there would be no a) arms dealers b) turncoats c) raiding of supply depots either by hook or by crook, during a civil war?

 

Finally, a bastion of pro-gun sentiment is taking on the challenge.

The Federalist article concedes "This is not an exhaustive list of reforms, but some for serious consideration."

It's a good start for Americans who will not surrender to the astronomical level of firearm fatalities, year in, year out, that dwarfs the level in all other advanced nations.

 

I don't know anyone with an interest in guns who is against properly enforcing the laws we have now, nor rational changes that would improve their effectiveness. How they go about it, who they burden, will always be part of what is seen as rational.

The caveat goes back to how that is going to impact criminals, when most criminal guns are obtained beyond the scope of law in the first place.

Surprisingly, police departments treat gun theft as they would any theft such as theft of cash or a television. The value of the gun decides the level of the crime. For the most part, theft of any item worth less than a $1,000 will get nothing but a report added in a filing cabinet. They don't have time to investigate petty crimes, they say. IF the stolen gun ever shows up by accident in some other discovery, and IF they trace the serial number back to your report, and IF the gun is not pilfered by the police themselves (yes it does happen) then maybe there will be some consequence. But most likely you will never see your gun again, and never hear from the police again. .I'm not guessing about that.

One of the changes that could be effective here would be to make the theft of a firearm a separate class of crime due to the potential for criminal abuse, a crime that would be actively investigated and pursued- and, a felony, regardless of dollar value. Follow that by increasing the magnitude of crime for selling stolen weapons in the same way. Today- these acts are treated as low priority- as if the item was a nondescript property like household goods of car stereos. It is just as safe to steal a gun as as it is to steal a box of cookies at the grocery store. That is clearly a hole in the safety net, and it could easily be tightened up.

No gun owners will object to that- they will endorse it strongly, and it applies directly to the availability of stolen guns, which are the most commonly used in crimes. It also applies to the availability of guns that might be obtained by a person who was denied purchase by the fed background check.

That is a rational, logical approach which imposes on no one except the criminal. I've never seen this suggestion endorsed by others, and I have no idea why it's being ignored.

Can you sign on to that one?

 

1: Its already been done. The law is clear, its not being complied with and that non compliance is not being remedied. You don't need an extra law to accomplish this, you simply have the people in charge fired and inform their replacements it was because they didn't do their ****ing jobs.
2: Already illegal. Already supposed to be done. No new law required here either. Just enforce what you already have.
3: They're only checking on people who self report and they wonder why they have a problem? Don't think you need new legislation there either
4: No. The idea expressed that allows this to continue is its not an imposition because its instant. I think they should be removing the three day period and enforcing compliance with submitting agencies to make it a truly instant check. Then, if someone ****s up and doesn't submit a record through negligence, you make them liable for damages as the "but for". Exposing them to potential liability will get them in compliance fast.
5: I don't see a problem with this being offered as a voluntary measure except for the fact that once offered as voluntary it will eventually be mandatory (incrementalism being the name of the game with gun banners) and it still wouldn't solve the "lost or stolen" he said she said defense which is the reason privates are not required to NICS in the first place. Because just like now only the law abiding would agree and enforcing it would be essentially impossible unless they intentionally incriminate each other or themselves.

 

Well, 45 pages and I think we did a pretty good job. Not too many flames, some good points made on both sides. Happy Thanksgiving everybody.

 

Absolutely...as well as the back ground check enhancements listed above

 

Agreed. We don't have a gun problem as some want us to believe. We have a problem with a certain segment of the population who are disproportionately violent for many of the reasons you cite above.

 

That's old data - 1995.
Here's something a little newer, 2004, showing only 11 percent purchased the guns legally:

The problem is that a legal purchase might have been done illegally (fake ID, or a paid purchaser, or lies on the documentations).

Here's more: http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-and-crime-prevention/

 

The guy up here in NOCAL who just shot up his little town was well known to the police. A felon, he was unable to walk into a gun store and buy a gun. So he built one. People intent on committing violence will find a way. The only way to prevent them from acting
badly is to remove them from society. But asshats like Jerry Brown would rather just let them out of prison. We will continue to have ultra violent criminals preying on the innocent as long as the Jerry Browns of the world continue to condone and facilitate these cretins, we will continue to see the scum terrorize our streets and neighborhoods.

 

If all guns disappeared tomorrow the result would be...nothing

If all cars disappeared the nation would grind to a halt.

 

Rancho Tehama?

Those were assault rifles. If that's what you are referring to you are wrong

 

30,000 dead people would be alive.

40,000 dead people would be alive.

 

Well then that bastion of journalistic integrity the LA Times got it wrong...

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-tehama-county-shooting-tic-toc-20171116-story,amp.html

 

Authorities this week said that Neal was armed with one semiautomatic assault-style rifle and two handguns and that a second rifle was later discovered during a search.

He did not legally own any of the guns, Johnston said. The two rifles were “manufactured illegally by him in his home” and unregistered, and the pistols were registered to another person, he said.

Guy must have been a genius machinist. Made two semi-autos?