slow innocent deaths while protecting responsible gun owners

There may be ways we all can act to reduce gun violence without taking a single gun away from a rational law abiding gun owner.

1. Change the climate by changing the dialog that divides us: Our attacks on others seldom have positive results and create an atmosphere of hatred and conflict that lead some people to think it is ok to “punish” those that disagree with us or do not do as we would like them to do, or “scare us”. As has been often said if one can’t say something nice say nothing at all. Don’t contribute to those media people who make a living doing so or vote for those people who openly promote hatred.

2. Spend the money nesscessary to make it harder for mass shooters to kill children. If we can have professional armed guards in courts and government buildings lets do the same for our children. We do not count on armed lawyers to protect our courts or armed elected officials to protect our legislative bodies.

3. Fine tune stand your ground laws to making deadly force the last resort not the first.

4. Assure that the people who buy guns are responsible gun owners by closing background check loopholes.

5. Promote heavier punishment for those that knowingly provide guns to those that can no longer legally own them such as felons, those wanted for a felony, and those that have mental health problems.

6. Do away with the argument that there will still be killings so we shouldn’t do anything about it.

 

What about letting known dangerous people in and out of jails with revolving doors and stupidly trying to keep guns away from them when they will get them anyway?

 

I would be against that. Should we add it to the list?

 

I am curious why you are limiting this to gun violence. Am I less dead if someone poisons me or cuts my throat?

 

I am most concerned with the ease of killing innocent people and reducing deaths. All violence will never be stopped, but that doesn't mean we can't reduce it.
Several thoughts:
It might be in the best interest of Gun enthusiasts in the long run if deaths are reduced and they help reduce them.
I am not willing to accept that mass shootings are the price we have to pay to keep our guns especially those that kill our children.
I would rather deal with a man trying to slit my throat than a man who has a firearm if I am not armed.
I think that doing away with animosity, hatred, anger where we can do so could reduce the number of armed incidents and ithis costs nothing and violates no one's freedom.
I am willing listen to responsible gun owners discuss what they can do to reduce (not end as it will never end) violence aimed at innocent people.
I am concerned that many gun enthusiasts are unwilling to participate even in this discussion.

 

Yes you are.

 

First off, let’s change the definitions to something more relatable. If you mix school shooting with idiots who shoot each other at gas stations, it’s a little misleading.

look at Philly and houston and Oakland. We get clowns who carJack people, shoot people they rob, and get in drunken gunfights outside of bars. It’s hardly fair to lump those felonious clowns in with columbine copycats.

 

The common ground you and I can work from is the desire to prevent murder. Human life is fragile and precious. I am what you would call a gun enthusiast because I collect guns, enjoy shooting, and participate in shooting competitions. I also train others on safety and marksmanship.

First, when someone shows signs of mental instability to the point of being a danger to others, that is where we need to focus our efforts. If someone is capable of harming another human being, they should be tracked like sex offenders are.

Criminals may not legally purchase firearms, but 100% of them that want guns have them. If criminals must give up their second amendment rights as a penalty for harming others, why not give up their 4th amendment rights as well? Violent people should have to live in fear of surprise visits by law enforcement.

Innocent lives should be protected. I pass 2 schools on my way to the office. Both have armed security escorting children from the car to the building. My high school was so dangerous, the school paper had an obituary section! They put 2 cops on campus and the violence stopped completely.

I live in Los Angeles and have many liberal friends. I am happy to take them to the range and clear up the common misunderstandings on what an AR-15 is and how limiting magazine capacity does not make a gun safer.

 

So, let someone attempt to shoot or stab you first, THEN (if you're not dead) you can shoot back? No thanks....

 

That is not what I mean there...if there is a reasonable way to avoid shooting it should be taken: if a black kid is knocking on your door first response should not be to shoot. If a car turns around in your driveway the first response should not be to shoot. If a person opens the door to your car in a parking lot your first response ... well you get the point. When I was young I was taught that if someone was coming in the front door you take your gun and go out the back.
The decision to shoot first in the above examples also ruins the shooter's life.

 

Better than being dead. And in the case of someone opening my vehicle door, that is also included in Castle Doctrine. I'm not about to let someone, or a mob of people, open my door and pull me out. Sorry, but they are getting shot first....

 

Yes/no

One of the most effective things you can do for is mandate gun securement. Win/win/win

1. reduce child accidental gun injury
2. Reduce theft of guns by casual criminals ergo reducing black market guns
3. Reduce suicide by gun
4. Reduce morbidity and mortality of women in domestic violence situations
5. Not a great deal of support for this one but some believe it would reduce mass shoutings

The bottom line is that adding in even a small delay reduces the impulsive acts

 

that's because almost all the people who claim they are trying to do something about gun violence are really trying to disarm honest people for political reasons

 

Nope.

 

no it won't reduce mass shootings-those are invariably planned. and the people most likely to follow requirements of "safe storage" are the least likely to kill others. I agree that if people keep their guns locked up-or stored in alarmed homes etc, it would cut down on 1 and 2 but not the next three

 

your stunningly well reasoned argument is incredibly effective in supporting the gun banning position.

 

a) Why haven't you addressed the reasons there are people getting shot?

b) Stop using racism as an excuse to not talk about the massive racial difference in murder rates.

c) Why does the anti-gun crowd getting informed on all things guns? If I wanted to advocate something, I would want to become an expert. Instead we have people spewing really ignorant things.

d) Why not find ways to quiet the press following a mass shooting?

e) Promote heavier punishment for those that use guns in committing crimes

f) Have open and honest conversations without fear of being called a racist, nutter, etc.

 

People on here won't be swayed so no point.

 

The problem here is that while all these things are wonderful personal aspirations to strive for and would certainly make society better the more people that willingful follow them ...most of them are not objectively enforceable and/or require handing the state the level of power it has no business wielding.

I got no issue with placing armed guards at schools.

The rest of these I don't see how enforcement is possible with creating other, potentially bigger problems. For example, how can we legislate that you we only say nice things while still allowing people to be called out for the bad things they do? How do we determine whether somewhat who is acting in a threatening manner is actually a threat? How do we objectively and legally define 'responsible'?

...there WILL always be killings. The notion they can all be prevented is utopian fantasy.

The problem is these are all great principles for individuals to live by, but most of this is so subjective as to be useless insofar as legislative policy is concerned. Like, for example, what is a 'responsible' gun owner? How are the responsible and irresponsible differentiated at the counter at the gun store? What govt agency can be trusted to honestly, diligently and unbiasedly track who is 'responsible' and who isn't? People who misuse firearms already get put on the prohibited persons list, so I presume you're suggesting some other metric?

Agreed on armed guards. We have plenty of schools already with armed guards, and spree-shooters tend to be pretty careful about avoiding them. Seems like something we should do more of...

 

Exactly! In 2021 there were more than 10 guns stolen for every armed robbery committed with guns. What that means is that the guns are very cheap and therefore disposable. Make it harder to get a stolen gun cheaply by making it harder to steal them.

 

I'm all for this. How do we do it?

I'm all for this also. Build walls around the schools. Depending on the size of the school I'd say no more than 4 gates, (and I do mean gates, not bars) which are manned by at least 2 guards. Plus guards for all entrances to the school itself. I'd prefer to have just one gate period. But size should be considered. Have police regularly drive past the school at random time sets.

I might support this...depends on how its done.

Better idea. If a person is considered to be too dangerous to own a gun, then they should not be out in the public in the first place. Keep dangerous people in prison. Rehabilitate them. Once they can prove that they are no longer a danger to society then they can be let out...with full Rights. No more second class citizenship status. This includes making sure that their records are sealed from public view. Only ones allowed to access them are judges and in some circumstances people working in the Whitehouse and Congress. One of the major reasons for recidivism is not being able to live in society normally. A felon is discriminated against in both housing and employment (among other things). This should no longer be allowed.

The problem here isn't necessarily that the current punishment for doing such isn't harsh. Its that its hardly enforced. LINK: Illegal gun buyers rarely prosecuted (wcpo.com) How about we just start enforcing the law on this one period? Although with my above idea this would actually no longer be needed.

That's never been the argument, at least not something that's ever really been said...though it is the end result I guess. Republican's argue against restrictions on the Right to own guns. Democrats argue for restricting the Right to own guns. Neither side is actually addressing what needs to be addressed. The core problems. Even your ideas, though mostly good, is not addressing the core problems. Poverty. Education that is getting worse every year. Justice system is designed for punishment. Mental Health system almost non-existent compared to the degree it needs to be AT. Focus on those things and I guarantee that ALL violent crime would be reduced, not just "gun violence". I would only add your first suggestion to this list. Though a decade or so ago I never would have thought it would be. :/

 

What? No gun bans? The Left will never go for that.

 

Really?...lol

 

I'm willing to consider options to reduce murders. However, that doesn't mean we absolutely need to find a way of reducing the murders.
We should consider each option and decide whether it really has overall merit, and whether its costs are really worth it.

I also think in the longer run, reducing or being more selective with immigration will help reduce the murder rate. Not sure that the Left will go along with that.
The homicide rates are really high in most of the countries where these migrants are coming from.

 

I don't think that will really do anything.
It will just unnecessarily punish people and be overly harsh.

Increasing the amount of punishment is just a desperate easy tactic that people fall back on when they do not know what else to do to solve the problem.