What can be done to stop gun violence

[Cruciferi]

Aye… Those were the days

 

[tony-nj]

I’ve even seen “J” used in a prime time network sitcom. Say the word for “a bundle of sticks” and you could lose everything. Say “JC” in vain in the same situation and few people if any bat an eye.

 

[Maximus1]

Let me begin where we agree. Society can always do well improving it’s values.
Thereafter, you need alternative steps to protect people now. You cannot wait until virtue grows in men’s hearts everywhere when people are dying. That task is so much more monumentally difficult and complex than any of the current proposals.
Next
You cannot address gun violence as a giant fungible category.
Gun violence varies greatly. Geographically, targets, motivations, etc.
One size does not fit all. So you cannot compare Chicago to a school shooting.
The remedies will never end all gun violence. Period! Watch the Jack Ruby tape. And even though Epstein did not involve a gun, it is an example of nothing is perfect.
As Michael Corleone says in Godfather II, “If history has shown us anything, it is that anyone can be killed.”
THE individual proposals are a package of DETERENT. The stronger the package, the stronger the deterrent. And the goal is not perfection or bust. It I to save all lives possible.

 

[Horton]

But will they?

It would take a major shift and a great deal of time. We didn’t get to this point over night.

I am with you on your hope that it would work, but in the end there are still going to be tons and tons of guns available for everyone.

I would have no problem with “tons and tons of guns”. We don’t have a gun problem.

 

[Anrakyr]

The real problem is even if the Gun Lovers are correct that no legal reason to stop them owning guns then the constitution needs to be Amended.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

There is no draft.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

Don’t mess with the Constitution. Just get assault weapons off the streets.

 

[Dolphin]

We have a very serious gun problem, one that can not be brushed away. The more people who don’t admit we have a gun problem, the larger the problem spreads. We have to make access to automatics and semis very restricted and work to change the hearts and minds of those considering violence.

To say we don’t have a gun problem or to say guns don’t kill people is insanely irrational

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

Sport hunting? What true sportsman would hunt with that kind of weapon?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Sport hunting? What true sportsman would hunt with that kind of weapon?

You’re not a hunter, are you?

A lot of people hunt varmints – woodchucks, ground squirrels and so on, animals that do a lot of damage, destroying pastures, carrying disease and so on. The most common cartridge used for this kind of hunting is the .223 Remington, the same cartridge the AR 15 was designed for.

This kind of hunting requires great accuracy, at long range. A properly accurized AR 15 is one of the most accurate rifles going.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

I grew up hunting deer, quail and dove. I used a 264 for deer and a 20-gauge shotgun for quail and deer. Plenty enough firepower.
You don’t have to shoot up an animal or a bird to kill it.
An AR 15 is not necessary.

 

[vern_humphrey]

An AR 15 is not necessary.

It’s not about necessity – it’s about exercising a constitutional right in the way you choose. Would you accept that “voting is not a necessity?” Or “newspapers are not a necessity?”

Varmint hunters do a service to ranchers and farmers, and harm no one. Why should they be penalized?

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

I’d say people’s unwillingness to discuss the moral fabric of a nation being torn asunder and manifesting in pulling God out of the public sphere, removing father’s from homes, promoting sex before marriage, and promoting alternatives to actual marriage (divorce, gay unions) as normal and healthy is just as sancrosant if not far more.

We actually have legislation that occurs and executive orders that get signed that tackle access to firearms.

We can chat and work together to solve the problem as soon as Congress gets involved in a discussion of things I mentioned.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

I have yet to hear your solution, just griping. Griping hasn’t prevented a single death yet.

 

[Nihilo]

The Supreme Court rules whether something is constitutional or not.

Yes, and their ruling is authoritative, but it doesn’t mean they’re Right. Do you disagree, or do you just blindly believe that whatever opinion the S. Ct. renders is automatically correct?

Dred Scott? Roe v. Wade?

We are a country of laws.

Thankfully I think, and I’ve never argued for anything resembling anarchy.

Back when the constitution was written, our army was made up of continentals (trained soldiers) and militia (volunteers who had little formal training).

There was no standing army then, the people who carried weapons of war on the streets were the militia.

Our military today (army, navy, air force, marines, and coast guard) has no need of militia for help. Our military protects us from foreign invaders.

There are thousands of murders committed in the US annually.

Bearing arms for personal protection and for hunting is good.

The former being a right, and the latter not.

But there is no need for individuals to own weapons designed for war.

The well regulated militia disagrees with you, and carries them regularly in the streets.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

Throughout this topic, you have been drawing conclusions and stating them as fact without anything to corroborate. This is an example. No one is going to work from what could be a completely bogus conclusion.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

Griping? I have merely suggested that we can try any number of things to stem the tide of gun violence.
Doing nothing is not working.
The House of Representatives passed several bills many months ago.
But the GOP-controlled Senate will not defy the NRA.
Senator Mitch McConnell has passed the buck to President Trump, who waffles on every issue. One day yes, the next day no. Or we have smart people studying the situation and our plan will be the best in the history of this country. Totally BS.

 

[Nihilo]

…if the Constitution is amended they will rule based on the amended version. Every first year law student knows that. I’m sure the Supreme Court justices know that too.

I know. What’s your point?

But as for them being “wrong”, that would be judging them from a higher authority than the US constitution. And under that higher authority, I think the 2nd amendment was itself a mistake. So where do you want to argue from? The law? Or higher authority, like Catholic doctrine? I will oblige you either way.

Political theory. It’s not a higher authority, it’s a vacuum of authority, since there is no one recognized best political theory, but I am a classical liberal.

…even the opinions of lawyers and judges have no more weight than mine or your interpretation.

No more weight where? In the eyes of God? In US law? Again, what is your chosen perspective?

In trying to establish the one correct interpretation of the Second Amendment, a valid appeal to authority is not possible. Therefor wrt authority, nobody’s view has anymore weight than anybody else’s.

“The people” in the preamble referred to the people at the time, because it says “in order to form”, and “do ordain and establish”. Nobody today is forming or ordaining or establishing anything. That was completed when the Constitution was ratified. So you are not helping your cause, only confusing it.

I directly answered your question.

The S. Ct. has since further ruled that “the people” in the Preamble are even those Nonamericans who happen to be in the US (even illegal aliens).

Given your low opinion of the SC, I don’t know if you are on board with this ruling or not. I suspect not.

I don’t think the S. Ct. is infallible. idk why you’d call that a “low opinion.”

I’m fine with that ruling. I’m not fine with that they all therefore also have the right to have their right to bear arms recognized, but there is no legal way for them to bear arms. So that opinion is not being upheld by our lawmakers.

LeafByNiggle:

The question of whether you are “well-regulated” is highly speculative.

Not if well regulated means good with a good gun, and always lawfully carrying one.

That is a weird definition of “well-regulated” that James Madison and his friends would not have recognized.

Cite?

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

And like most Republicans, Drive (that is what the Dr stands for, correct?), you just pass gun violence off like it is not important.
My heart goes out to every person who has lost a loved one to gun violence.

 

[Searching]

How will banning guns remove them from criminals?