What can be done to stop gun violence

[RaisedCatholic]

Universal backgrounds checks, red flag laws, outlawing of assault type weapons and implementation of a buy back plan for those who currently own such weaponry, and closing the gun show loopholes would seem sensible.

80% of gun-related crimes are committed by gang members, many of whom get guns illegally, so none of these regulations are going to curb gun violence since criminals don’t adhere to gun laws.

Are there any other things that could be tried?

Yeah, stricter penalties for gun-related crimes to deter criminal behavior. If they know for a fact if they murder someone with a gun they WILL receive the death penalty, and if their victims don’t die they WILL receive life in prison without parole. Kick out the liberal judges & lawyers who are soft on gun-related deaths & crimes. And put the Bible back in public schools. All this didn’t start being an epidemic until after it was removed. Although people don’t believe this, no one has tried to disprove it, and they ignore the fact when it was in schools it wasn’t as big a problem as it is now.

 

[Peeps]

I have “liked” many of the posts above and I should probably like more.

I agree that banning is not the answer. I live near Chicago, and we have very strict gun laws, and yet, we have constant gun violence. Just yesterday in nearby Rockford, there was a broad daylight shooting in an area that is considered the “entry to the downtown area,”–a location that is considered safe enough for children to walk through, and the elderly congregate. But the shooting happened–no reports yet of motive. I suspect that like Chicago, it was probably gang-related.

I think we need a lot of prayer.

I also think that the lack of fathers present in the home and married to the mother is a very likely cause of the anger and frustration that prompts some young people to resort to gun violence. I remember MY father being someone that I looked up to as “godlike”, and he taught both me and my brother, from a very young age, to never ever, EVER point a gun, ANY GUN, even a TOY GUN, at a person! EVER! We knew he had served in the Army and we knew that he occasionally hunted on his own property (a farm), and the guns were hanging up in the kitchen over the door–easy to get at. He also had guns in the master bedroom to use as protection, and several times he USED those guns to drive away intruders, including when he was in his 80s and a would-be-robber pulled into the driveway and demanded money–my father fired the rifle over his head and literally drove him away–no one was hurt.

Farms are isolated, and I would not want to see farmers deprived of the right to bear arms and protect themselves.

I don’t think it’s just a question of having a father in the home. I think it’s having a strong father (not an alpha-male who abuses his family!) who earns not only the love, but also the respect of his children and step-children.

 

[Peeps]

I think that many children are frustrated and angry, and I think in some children, this anger festers and eventually boils over and incites the child (teen) to a violent act.

I think the same anger sometimes surfaces in adults.

I’m guessing this is related to a form of emotional illness, probably with roots in early childhood. Many children grow up in homes where

–there is is no response to their frustration over little things, and eventually the little things become big things; e.g., failing to acquire basic skills like reading in school

–unrelenting poverty and parental inability to get/keep a viable job

–lack of positive attention from their parents or other relatives

–constant anger from parents and in many cases, physical or mental abuse

–loneliness, no friends other than neighborhood gang members

–drug use by parents (includes alcohol abuse), and also overeating of starches with little protein leading to poor physical health of the parents (e.g., morbid obesity)

—inferiority complex

–sexual frustration and sexual abuse, sexualization at too early an age

–porn in the home easily attainable by the children

–constant noise in the home–TV and/or music ALWAYS on, traffic noise, never any silence or quiet times

–lack of intellectual stimulation from birth

–hunger, lack of adequate and nutritious food (to nourish the body and give the proper tools for normal physical and psychological development)

–influence of powerful neighborhood gangs from an early age (in Chicago inner city neighborhoods, all children are automatically assigned to a gang, and refusal is not an option. Gang life is the norm in these neighborhoods).

–lack of religious training and follow-through by the parents and other adults outside of their church (hypocrisy)

–entertainment role models who sing about or act in shows that glorify a violent lifestyle

–fear of police and law enforcement

–racism

–lack of kind, loving REAL LIFE role models, anonymous “aid” money, food, housing, etc. from “the government” with no human actually present to make it clear to a child (or adult!) that the aid comes from people who give a d___ about the family and the children.

etc.

There are so many factors that contribute to violence, but I think that many children grow up frustrated and angry, and for some of these children, their emotional upheaval and inability to deal with their situation cause them to contemplate and eventually act violently. The guns are easily obtainable from gangs and mobs, so a “gun ban” would do little good.

This isn’t just about inner city neighborhoods. Many children in affluent neighborhoods grow up with many of the same “bad” influences that I listed above, even hunger! A non-present parent (divorce, over-involvement with work or social life, etc.) can happen in “rich” homes, too.

We simply have to be in the trenches and help families to deal with all their issues and more that I haven’t listed. We need to “be the Church in the world.”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

None of the things you mention above cause gun violence.

No, but they are the means of gun violence. It is legitimate to discuss minimizing the means for gun violence.

Ban guns.

Nothing else will work.

Unnecessary, impractical, and unwise. There are legitimate uses for guns, and if properly regulated, they would not pose and outsized problem.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

We can work on what you are talking about in the long run. Changing the way people live.
But, in the short run, we need a way of separating haters from weapons designed to kill others, like AR-15s and AK-47s.
That old cliche (guns don’t kill people) I am sure was devised by the NRA.
Guns make it easier for people to kill people.
Assault weapons make it easier for people to kill a maximum number of people over a short period of time.
WE DO HAVE A GUN PROBLEM. Ask the people who have been involved in one of the mass killings.
Anyone of us or any one of our family could be the next victim of some random hater with a gun.

 

[Peebo]

These threads come up on CAF every time there’s a mass shooting here in the US…nothing changes…and nothing will…the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct…just live…(or die) with it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

None of this is going to stop gun violence.

Reason: gun violence is committed by criminals and mass murderers. These people are going to get what they need to kill people regardless. If they don’t use guns (which criminals often get on the black market anyway), they will use home made bombs, knives, machetes, driving car into crowd, etc.

It is much easier to buy a gun than to make a bomb. Driving into a crowd means almost certain identification and possibly capture. Knives are tricky to wield effectively. Just because these other avenues of crime exist that does not mean we should not close down or at least restrict this one avenue that has proven to be the one most traveled.

The real solution is to get to the bottom of WHY do these people want to commit mass murder. It’s … not poverty, because the world (and the US) has had lots of poverty throughout history.

Poverty is not a cause but it is a factor. Another factor is population density. That and poverty have always correlated with violence in whatever form was appropriate to the age.

To me, I find it very interesting that as God has slipped away from our culture, the number of mass killings has increased.

That is likely a factor. And lot of other things have happened over that period, such as the prominence and immediacy of media coverage. That is probably an even bigger factor. But neither of those factors can be easily remedied in law because of the 1st amendment.

The thing that we have to understand is this: when someone wants to commit domestic terrorism, they are going to do it with or without a gun.

“The thing to understand is this: when a women wants an abortion she is going to get it, whether it is legal or not, so don’t bother making it illegal.” That is not a very sound argument, is it?

So if you really want to stop violence… we need to understand and fix the underlying issue that causes someone to want to want to commit mass murder.

And if we are unable to fix those underlying issues in mankind, what then, eh?

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

I pray for those who will be the next victims.
The NRA scares hunters with they are coming to take your guns.
Those who hate other Americans stock up on weapons designed for war and prepare to kill others.
People are killed. Thoughts and prayers are sent by do-nothing people in Congress.
And the killing goes on.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

It is not hard to understand.
One word…Hate.

 

[Jimbo]

I’m a bit of an odd duck. I don’t own a gun. I don’t really want to own a gun. I’ve gone to hunters safety classes and enjoyed shooting, but not so much I want to spend the time and money to buy one. Further, I don’t want to go through the hassle of having to secure a gun at my house when I have kids. I find the seeming worship that some people give to guns a bit distasteful.

That said, guns don’t scare me. I know many, many people who have CPL’s and carry regularly. These are normal, regular, everyday people who are very responsible.

I just feel all this talk on guns is misguided. We have a mass murder problem. Take away guns, ban them completely, and it will end up being a thread about car violence; or like the 70’s bomb violence. Get hot and bothered about guns, tear ourselves apart, and try to get rid of guns by implementing more ‘common sense gun laws’ and you know what? The next mass shooter will find a way to either A) ignore those laws or B) find new loopholes. Why? Because they’ve already decided and committed themselves to a horrific course of action. And in the meantime we’ve spent more political capital and sown the seeds for more internal fighting because those who want to exercise their right to have a gun are going to feel put upon, targeted, and asked to concede more yet again, when they themselves haven’t done anything wrong. So that when the next mass shooting happens those who wanted the next round of ‘reasonable gun laws’ will be asking for more ‘reasonable gun laws’ and we’ll get more gridlock as those being asked to give up more are going to get more and more intransigent.

So… where do we go?

First, lets realize that the mass shootings are getting more deadly, but not necessarily more frequent:

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/15/593831564/the-disconnect-between-perceived-danger-in-u-s-schools-and-reality

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...hootings-more-deadly-frequent-research-215678

This is a huge problem. But it should also give us some hope. It isn’t as if people have decided to start running about killing everyone indescriminately. Rather, the problem has shifted.

My own personal opinion is that we need to stop the ‘GUNS GUNS GUNS!’ rhetoric out there. Assault weapons bans sound good, but are often poorly written and from what I’ve read ineffective. Yes, guns are the tool used by these people. We may decide eventually we have to find a way to figure out how to handle things like high capacity magazines; but we have to step back and look at the data clearly, and as a whole, to figure out how to:

A) reduce the people willing to commit mass murder,
B) reduce their lethality, if possible.

That means time and money spent on real, not partisan research. That may mean we spend more time doing things like work on mental health; family health, and fatherlessness.

But those are hard things. And for a politician it’s easier to ban the scary looking gun.

From a Catholic perspective? A great solution to gun violence is, in my opinon, good evangelization.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

I agree that we must address the reason why people kill.
But taking away one method is the start to finding a solution.
Guns make it easier to kill people.
Why make it easy for these people to kill.
I myself have been a hunter earlier in my life, until it because too expensive.
People do not hunt with assault type weapons. There may be some who do, but they could not be called sportsmen. Assault weapons should be banned.

 

[Jimbo]

“ The thing to understand is this: when a women wants an abortion she is going to get it, whether it is legal or not, so don’t bother making it illegal .” That is not a very sound argument, is it?

I guess I disagree. Guns are used by many for many things. Some legit, some (like murder) horrific. A better analogy might be the medical vacuum pump. It can be used to suck blood or fat from a patient in life saving surgery. Or it can be used to suck a baby from the womb.

We should outlaw the intrinsically evil thing (abortion, murder via gun) while not outlawing the general use tool (guns, vacuum pumps).

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

Gun violence has nothing to do with abortion. Why try to equate the two issues?
Those who use guns to kill are wrong.
Those who choose to abort fetuses are wrong.
But the OP was about stopping gun violence.
The politicians try to make both issues an ongoing thing. They never do anything, because they do not want these issues to be solved.

 

[Brian_K]

Following the models of Israel and Switzerland (with some modifications), I suggest all men age 16 and older be required to own a firearm, trained in its use and basic self-defense, and able to qualify with it once a year. I would suggest trying this in a small number of states or even communities and studying the results. Sometimes the best solution is the exact opposite of what most people think.

Wouldn’t it be something if history showed that the answer to gun violence was more guns?

 

[Jimbo]

I wasn’t. I was responding to someone who did.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Gun violence has nothing to do with abortion. Why try to equate the two issues?

I did not mean to equate the two issues. I cited abortion only to refute one very narrow point, which was that if people want to do something bad they will do with with or without the help of something that would make it easier. In the case of abortion we definitely do see the value in making it harder to get an abortion, even though some may continue to do it despite the fact that it is illegal. Similarly, we can see the value in making it harder to kill with gun, even though some people will continue to kill without a gun. I meant nothing more than that.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

Sounds like a National Rifle Association talking point.
We have enough guns out there now. No need to put more guns into the hands of more people.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

The restrictions have cut down on the number of abortions.
Regulating weapons that take lives would likely cut down on the number of deaths.

 

[Jimbo]

Again, I respectfully disagree. Your argument (seems) to assume that hunting is the only valid use of guns. I have a co worker who carries a semi-automatic pistol for personal protection. She’s very serious about it and very adamant that she would not give it up. Do AR’s have a valid use in personal protection? Maybe. I’m not a gun owner., and the last person to make that call. But I’d rather spend the money used to try to ban AR’s on trying to find the root cause and address that.

Again, from the politico article:

The rise in the average number of victims also raises a number of other questions about mass public shootings. Foremost among them: Why have they become more deadly since the mid-2000s?

It may be tempting to conclude this increase is because of the expiration of the assault weapons ban in 2004—after all, the increase began shortly after the ban ended. But the limited research that’s been done suggests it had little short-term impact on gun violence.

That’s probably not a popular conclusion. But the available evidence suggests that strengthening or weakening gun laws would not significantly affect the incidence or severity of mass public shootings. For example, studies examining bans on large-capacity magazines and right-to-carry concealed firearms laws have found they would have little or no effect on mass public shootings. Still, the question of whether the assault weapons ban had an impact on the severity of mass public shootings has yet to be answered empirically, which highlights a surprising major problem for those of us who’d like to stop the killings: There’s been relatively little rigorous research on mass violence, likely due to the virtual absence of research funding on this topic. In comparison, we spend millions each year to fund research on tornadoes, which have been about as deadly as mass shootings since the mid-1970s.

The few studies we do have tell us that mass public shootings, while horrific, are, fortunately, quite rare. This apparent paradox—rare yet “routine”—likely reflects the outsized impact that catastrophic mass murders have on our perceptions of public safety. But until we make the investment to find solutions, we won’t really know why these tragedies happen or how to prevent them.

 

[Brian_K]

Well, like I said, let’s try it on a small scale and see. Crime statistics show the cities with the most restrictive gun laws have the most violent crime. Perhaps the opposite approach is in fact the solution. At least if my suggestion is wrong, we’ll have actual evidence and know to try something else.