Gun violence - lest we forget

[meltzerboy2]

Were the framers of the American Constitution biblical prophets who could foresee the future, a future in which gun violence would take the form of mass shootings on a regular basis? I don’t think so.

 

[meltzerboy2]

When you say “governments,” are you including the U.S. government, or do you mean that since other governments have done so, we should assume that we are also in danger of our government doing the same? If the latter, since when is our American domestic policy dependent on that of foreign governments?

 

[Ridgerunner]

I am merely observing that the unjustified killing done by governments massively outweighs what individuals have done with guns.

 

[Feanor2]

That’s precisely what the NRA proposes- more guns.

“the only thing to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

 

[Feanor2]

Causes of mass shootings?

Like abortion and contraception- that has actually been proposed here on CAF

 

[Thinker_Doer]

I am merely observing that the unjustified killing done by governments massively outweighs what individuals have done with guns.

Starting from the times of cavemen until yesterday? In every society? We are only talking about the violence performed by here and now, since the US was established.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Emeraldlady:

Can you not see the silliness of this comment? How many arms would a tribe need to match the governments cache?

You can make the case for only government having guns, but the tens of millions of civilians killed by governments over the last century is s testimony against it.

The many many more who have not been killed because of governments keeping order is testimony for it.

There are tens of thousands of incidents of individual civilians protecting and defending themselves and others with their firearms when law enforcement isn’t around.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There are tens of thousands of incidents of individual civilians protecting and defending themselves and others with their firearms when law enforcement isn’t around.

And there are millions and millions of non-incidents of people who did not die because of anarchy. That is what you are arguing for by suggesting that governments should not be armed. Or are you going to abandon that strategy that you announced when you said:

You can make the case for only government having guns, but the tens of millions of civilians killed by governments over the last century is s testimony against it.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

And if this movement also happens to have a beneficial effect on overall gun deaths too, I think it is understandable that people will use spectacular events like this to accomplish those goals.

[sarcasm on] I take this along with your dismissal of Chicago gun homicides, terming that “whataboutism” as you are rooting for more mass shootings if it will get you the gun laws you strenuously advocate for. [sarcasm off]

There are more than enough gun laws already on the books. There also more than enough mental health laws on the books. Why not enforce them? For instance, there was a shooter in Texas who had a domestic violence charge against him and was supposed to be blacklisted. But the government fell down on the job and didn’t enforce their own law and now they’re screaming for more laws. There’s a prevalence of prosecutors who plead everything down; don’t let them do that when guns are involved. There are laws for that; use them.

I said in the other thread regarding Warren’s 80% reduction in gun deaths goal that there was nothing there about the inner cities where the vast majority of gun homicides are taking place. The lack of care about these jurisdictions is perfectly symbolized by Leaf’s curt dismissal above. It’s all about the mass shootings even though the actual deaths are just a tiny fraction of overall gun deaths. So I’m going to say it again: too few gun control folks actually care about the inner city victims.

 

[Ridgerunner]

. So I’m going to say it again: too few gun control folks actually care about the inner city victims.

Their interest seems to be limited to disarming the law-abiding, not the criminals.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

Their interest seems to be limited to disarming the law-abiding, not the criminals.

Then the ugly question has to be asked: why the strenuous emphasis on the law abiding and not on the criminals?

What say you, Leaf? You going to keep spouting “whataboutism” at us?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

And if this movement also happens to have a beneficial effect on overall gun deaths too, I think it is understandable that people will use spectacular events like this to accomplish those goals.

[sarcasm on] I take this along with your dismissal of Chicago gun homicides, terming that “whataboutism” as you are rooting for more mass shootings if it will get you the gun laws you strenuously advocate for. [sarcasm off]

There are more than enough gun laws already on the books. There also more than enough mental health laws on the books. Why not enforce them? For instance, there was a shooter in Texas who had a domestic violence charge against him and was supposed to be blacklisted. But the government fell down on the job and didn’t enforce their own law and now they’re screaming for more laws. There’s a prevalence of prosecutors who plead everything down; don’t let them do that when guns are involved. There are laws for that; use them.

I said in the other thread regarding Warren’s 80% reduction in gun deaths goal that there was nothing there about the inner cities where the vast majority of gun homicides are taking place. The lack of care about these jurisdictions is perfectly symbolized by Leaf’s curt dismissal above. It’s all about the mass shootings even though the actual deaths are just a tiny fraction of overall gun deaths. So I’m going to say it again: too few gun control folks actually care about the inner city victims.

There’s no indication that gun advocates care about inner cities either.

You are wrong in saying the statement of mine that you quoted is a a dismissal of anything.

You are wrong in saying that Warren’s proposals have nothing to benefit the inner cities. In fact they benefit everywhere, including the inner cites.

You are wrong if you think increased persecution of the mentally ill is going to help anything. In fact, the mentally ill are much more likely to be victims of gun violence than perpetrators.

And I don’t know what to make of your remark framed in sarcasm. A word of advice: sarcasm is never a good way to be understood.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

You are wrong in saying the statement of mine that you quoted is a a dismissal of anything.

If you are really and truly serious about reducing overall gun deaths rather than saying “whataboutism”, how about offering a thread specifically addressing Chicago and similar inner cities? I rather suspect one would get the most impact for the buck for something to be done differently in the inner cities. A 50% year to year reduction in Chicago alone would easily exceed this year’s national death toll from mass shootings. I don’t think you are as serious about this as you are about mass shooters. I would like to be proven wrong.

How would you go about addressing the homicide clearance rate in Chicago which is woefully low? How would you go about addressing how existing gun control laws are failing in Chicago and what would you change about their enforcement? What would you change about the sentencing laws there?

Here, let me throw in a tidbit for you. In New York City, they instituted “broken windows” enforcement and “stop and frisk” laws. Most progressives hate these laws and have often termed them racist, but my liberal friends who live in Manhattan liked them; they liked being able to walk around without so much fear. That might explain why New York City doesn’t have the homicides that Baltimore, Chicago and St Louis do. If you’re lacking in creative thoughts about the inner cities, there’s one you can support or oppose.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

You are wrong in saying the statement of mine that you quoted is a a dismissal of anything.

If you are really and truly serious about reducing overall gun deaths rather than saying “whataboutism”, how about offering a thread specifically addressing Chicago and similar inner cities?

I rather suspect one would get the most impact for the buck for something to be done differently in the inner cities.

Whatever we do “for” the inner cities would most likely have to be done everywhere, not just in the inner cities. That’s because if guns can be bought more easily in Indiana, criminals from Chicago will go to Indiana to buy their guns and sidestep measures taken exclusively in inner cities.

As for what might be done, I personally would like to see mandatory training and registration for all gun purchases. Of course that won’t happen because it would probably be ruled against the 2nd amendment. In that case I would propose we modify the 2nd amendment. Of course that won’t happen either as long as Wayne LaPierre controls the nation’s gun agenda.

Along with mandatory registration I would make it a crime to provide a gun to someone who would not pass a background check. As that is difficult to enforce directly, I would enforce it this way: If a gun is recovered in the commission of a crime, and if that gun is traced back to the legal owner who provided the gun to someone without a background check, I would hold that original owner partly responsible for the crime that was committed. That should be a good enough incentive for everyone to be very careful who they sell guns too. If the gun is stolen and reported immediately to the police, the owner is not held responsible. Likewise if someone passes a background check and still commits a crime, the one who sold him the gun is not held responsible because of that background check. I think that is only fair.

How would you go about addressing the homicide clearance rate in Chicago which is woefully low?

Improve police community relations so that the public is not afraid to provide information to the police that would lead to charges for the guilty party.

Here, let me throw in a tidbit for you. In New York City, they instituted “broken windows” enforcement and “stop and frisk” laws. [

Studies show that the broken windows policy was only marginally effective in reducing more serious crime, even to the point of being within the statistical error bands. But depending on how it is implemented, it sometimes had the detrimental effect of fostering distrust of the police by members of the community. That in turn negatively affects the clearance rate.

 

[JonNC]

And there are millions and millions of non-incidents of people who did not die because of anarchy. That is what you are arguing for by suggesting that governments should not be armed.

I’m not arguing against government having guns. I’m arguing against only government having guns. It would be idiotic for government not to have guns. It is dangerous for citizens not to have guns.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

As for what might be done, I personally would like to see mandatory training and registration for all gun purchases.

Well said. Let’s get into the details.

Create a national database for all gun owners, and include the guns’ serial numbers in it. Make gun-shows illegal. If there is a legitimate transfer, the database will be updated. Illegitimate transfer would carry a very serious penalty. Gun ownership would include a license to describe what kind of a weapon is allowed for the person.

After all the law abiding gun owners love to boast about how much they respect the law, they would be happy to stand in line and register their guns. Only the criminals would not want to do that.

Treat guns just like cars. Renewable licenses, periodic background checks, and inspection of all guns, to make sure that the semi-automatic weapons are not modified to become illegal, fully automatic guns. Yes, it would be a burden, and expensive, but the law-abiding citizens would be happy to respect the laws and pay the appropriate license fee to prove their honesty and respect for the law! And the ones who just say that they respect the law, could be filtered out, and punished accordingly.

Let’s amend the Constitution, if necessary. Let’s hold a nationwide referendum, too. To take away the incentive to form gangs, and get rid of turf wars for the lucrative territories, let’s decriminalize all drugs. If someone wishes to overdose, that will be his or her prerogative.

Such a simple solution for all the problems!! I can visualize all the law abiding citizens to swarm to the official gun-licensing offices, carrying their weapons in a wheel-barrow. (Or maybe they would change their names to “Clyde Barrow” and “Bonnie Parker”.) And we could open a hunting season for them.

Any objections?

 

[phil3]

There will never be a constitutional amendment that removes or limits the 2nd amendment.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

There will never be a constitutional amendment that removes or limits the 2nd amendment.

Never is a long time.

 

[maryjk]

Well said. Let’s get into the details.

Create a national database for all gun owners, and include the guns’ serial numbers in it. Make gun-shows illegal. If there is a legitimate transfer, the database will be updated. Illegitimate transfer would carry a very serious penalty. Gun ownership would include a license to describe what kind of a weapon is allowed for the person.

What do you mean “allowed” for that person?

To say nothing that a national registration is not what cars have. Maryland has no idea what kind of car I drive. I register it in Alabama.

And once it is registered, Alabama never looks at that car again.

Gun registration is a prelude to gun confiscation.

You want to confiscate guns, make a go at changing the Bill of Rights.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

What do you mean “allowed” for that person?

Just like you need different licenses for cars, trucks and buses.

To say nothing that a national registration is not what cars have.

Minor technicality.

Gun registration is a prelude to gun confiscation.

Only the confiscation of ILLEGAL guns. The legal ones are safe.